ABA Journal - Law News Now

Comments

• Report Abuse

1. Posted by Ellen Barshevsky - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 4 hours, 13 minutes ago

   This is true.  My firm is NOT giving out a bonus this year and we were told last week we ALL must work harder.

   In these times, we must be happy if we have work to do.  We must respect our bosses, as long as they are being fair to us.

   Right now, I think they are.

   Because of all of the subprime mortgages, we have to work harder at work and there is NOT as much work for all of us.

   For those people out of work, I am very sorry that the subprime mortgages caused this mess.  I did not even know what a subprime mortgage was, but I am sorry this happened.

   My father offered to cosign a loan for me, but I would NOT take it.  After all, I am old enough to make it on my own, and if I get married, I will have my boyfriend’s income to apply on the application too.  Then my father won’t have to cosign the loan.

   Our goverment leaders must figure out a solution and this will get us ALL back to prosperity. 

   I am not sure who is the best candidate for that, either.  But I am NOT an expert on that.  I vote for the PERSON, not the canditate’s party, and therefor must read alot more before the election next month.

2. Posted by Jack - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 3 hours, 27 minutes ago

   How ridiculous, there are only so many hours in a day, and the firms have got us billing every waking moment that we’re not eating, sleeping or washing.  What’s left to add?  Down with this system, already.  Enough is enough.  Associates nationwide need to continue resisting management on these fronts.

3. Posted by J. Phillips - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 3 hours, 16 minutes ago

   Ellen,

   Don’t be foolish, accept your father’s offer of love, i.e. to co-sign for the loan and get the mortgage.  This is the best time to buy real estate, when the prices are down.  If you don’t buy now, you may not be able to get a home later.  You aren’t old enough to remember when the mortgage rates were rapidly going up in the early 1980’s, to 17-18 %.  All my friends were rushing to buy their first house before the rates went up past 17 1/2%.  You have an incredible opportunity now, don’t waste it.  Your father worked as hard as he did in order to be able to help you.  Count your blessings for God sake.

4. Posted by Kevin - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 2 hours, 36 minutes ago

   What has to happen is associate salaries need to be “deflated” to reflect their true value to both the firm and the client.

   Do you think partners will continue to accept less salary to support unprofitable groups of associates?

   A find it comical that one complains about “billing every waking moment.“  What do you think would happen when a 25 year old with no relevant experience is making $180,000 per year?

   I guess associates want to keep their 180K and be home at five for dinner and count on weekends away? 

   I believe all are in for a rude awakening

5. Posted by Josh - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 2 hours, 21 minutes ago

   Ellen,

   You said, “Our goverment leaders must figure out a solution and this will get us ALL back to prosperity. “

   I’m wondering why the solution must involve the government. Regulations that required banks in certain neighborhoods to issue subprime mortgages are part of the source of this mess. Government tends not to be the solution but the problem.

   Associate salaries are a sticky subject: there must be incentives for people like me (who are from lower-middle class families and don’t have trust or college funds) to take on the social and financial burden of law school and actually be able to make payments on those loans while earning a living wage. But, Kevin is right—a fresh JD doesn’t have the relevant experience to be making $180K.

   I’m not sure what the solution is—either to the associate salary debate or the financial crisis—but it shouldn’t be given to the government.

6. Posted by Former Small Firm Associate - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 2 hours, 17 minutes ago

   Kevin - Most associates are not making $180K.  I certainly wasn’t when I was an associate.  I made a very small salary and was told that to make up for the salary, my work/life balance would be much better than at a large firm.

   After moving to the small town in which the firm was located, I was told that I needed to have “face time” until midnight everynight and work all of Saturday and Sunday regardless of my work load.  They were nice enough to tell me that I could go home and have dinner with my family and then come back to the office. 

   After gaining as much experience as I could, I jumped at the opportunity to go in house at a place I worked at in law school.  My pay remained virtually the same, my benefits are wonderful (compared to none at the firm), my company is great and the best part is that I can leave at 4:30 if I want.  I would have been crazy to stay at my old firm.

7. Posted by aj - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 1 hour, 46 minutes ago

   3L here….ummmm, looks like I should focus on studying foreclosure law/bankruptcy my last semester of law school. At least there will be a need for someone with that “skill set” - if you believe that anyone coming out of law school has ACTUALLY acquired a skill set.

8. Posted by H Tuttle - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 1 hour, 41 minutes ago

   >>Our goverment leaders must figure out a solution and this will get us ALL back to prosperity<<

   Don’t be deluded. The road to serfdom is not the road to prosperity. The vast bulk of the legal profession and legal work has become a ridiculous sham owing little to “law” and less to producrivity or common sense.  90% of people going to law school are and will be making an expensive mistake, that will bring little satisfaction, much anxiety and almost no security.

9. Posted by Donald - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 1 hour, 27 minutes ago

   $180,000 staring salary for a first-year associate?  Sorry, but no first-year making six figures has a right to complain about billable requirements.  I recently forced our outside counsel to eat $20,000 off a litigation bill because of the enormous amount of time spent by a first year doing work that added little to no value.  As in-house counsel, I refuse to subsidize the training of young associates who are paid way beyond their abilities.  This is a broken model.  What will it take to fix it?  Or will it ever get fixed? 

   Also, it’s foolish to rely on the government to lead you to prosperity.  This is an ownership society, get used to it and make it yourself.  Don’t wait for Uncle Sam come to your rescue.

10. Posted by Stephen - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 1 hour, 24 minutes ago

    First year associate pay is a status symbol for big firms in the same way ancient kings used to dress their slaves in gold.  It goes something like this: “We’re so rich and powerful we can throw away money on people with no marketable skills or experience.“

11. Posted by Hadley V. Baxendale - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 1 hour, 23 minutes ago

    This is true today as it was 25 years ago:  Those who start at a firm with a large salary are working two shifts at the factory.  $60,000 at a weekday, no weekend firm is the same as $120,000 at an all day and night, all weekend firm.  It’s easy math to do.  The number to look at when interviewing is not so much the billable requirement as the typical “hours at work” to make the goal (including remote work).  Focus as well on the area of law—some lend themselves to billing almost all hours at the desk; some have an attrition where hard as you try, you bill 75% of your work hours.  Beware and don’t be dazzled.

12. Posted by Kimball - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 1 hour, 23 minutes ago

    I guess I don’t understand.  How do you work more when there is not enough work?  In order to bill more doesn’t there have to be work to bill for?

13. Posted by Jeffrey - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 1 hour, 8 minutes ago

    Please explain to me how this works:

    Less work available, so we bill more. Last I checked the hours we billed in a boom are no more valuable than a recession.

    Unless the rates we are billed out at are also being decreased (hence the reason to bill more), there is absolutely no reason to bill more during a recession.

    I work 55 hours a week, get $52,000 in income, there is no way in hell I’m working any longer.

14. Posted by Mark - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 1 hour, 1 minute ago

    Jeffrey, you make $18.18 an hour before taxes, I wouldn’t work any longer either!

15. Posted by biglaw - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 48 minutes ago

    It is very simple to bill more hours in a worse economy. Associates get more competitive and you bill 2400 hours by eating up the available work, while Joe Schmoe second year is not assigned work. Whoever tries the hardest to be staffed will get the hours. Then Joe Schmoe gets laid off because he is not producing.

16. Posted by Stephanie - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 48 minutes ago

    All of you who are saying that associates makine $180K have no right to complain about anything are forgetting one thing - Associates don’t make the decision to raise salaries.  Firms do.  We would gladly give back the last few ridiculous “market” raises in exchange for less hours pressure.  Some of us are doing effectively that, by going “part-time.“

17. Posted by Amused - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 28 minutes ago

    $18.18 an hour… I made more than that in tips waitressing before law school. Good to know 7 years of school and hundreds and thousands of dollars will be worth it in the end.

18. Posted by Marc - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 25 minutes ago

    $180K is not a lot of money.  According to B.O. a person making that much is part of the “working class” and will get a tax cut under his administration!

19. Posted by Ronnie - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 21 minutes ago

    Jeffrey,

    I’m assuming you’re at a small firm? If so, congrats! Sure the pay is less but the trade-offs, at least for me, are so worth it.  I also work 55 hours a week, but I make $100,000.  Just over half of the Williams & Connolly salary, but I wouldn’t trade it for the world.  And given that I’m entering my third year with the firm, and started at $60,000, I’d say I’ve done okay.  Growth potential at small firms can be great.

20. Posted by Alexi - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 13 minutes ago

    I agree with Donald.  I am in-house counsel and absolutely refuse to subsidize a law firm’s decision to pay their junion associates salaries that bear no relation to the value they offer the client.  I’m sorry but I don’t need to pay $375 an hour for a first year to sit a deposition all day and learn how it’s done.  More client push-back on rates is the only thing that will change this broken system.

21. Posted by BigJim - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 10 minutes ago

    The overall model is just broken.  Clients are the ones who ultimately shoulder these big salaries at all levels and they are not going to be writing blank checks in hard times.  Just like most associates aren’t worth $200/hr, most senior partners aren’t worth $600-800/hr.  It is all a house of cards built on a lie - that there is such a shortage of capable, skilled legal talent out there that you have to pay through the nose to get access to it.  The truth is that there are more lawyers out there chasing less work. 

    As the pressure on the broken model increases, you can bet firms will try to bump up hours and hold salaries down.  But that’s bailing on a sinking ship.  All the hours beyond 2000 come right out your life. Those additional hours are nights, weekends, canceled vacations time not spent with your family.  So you can set billable hour quotas as high as you want, but only the most pathetic, work-is-my-only-life losers will cheerfully bill 2,400 a year regularly.  So that isn’t the answer. 

    The real answer is that being a lawyer is going to stop being one of the most lucrative careers one can choose.  Salaries and income are going to go down across the board, once a few firms figure out that they can scoop up clients from the overpriced biglaw firms by simply charging materially lower prices and giving the same level of service.  The price war is coming, and when it happens, it isn’t going to be pretty, but at least it will blow up this dysfunctional system that chews up and burns out almost everybody in the profession eventually.

22. Posted by RL - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 9 minutes ago

    Just curious what a first year at W&C is getting per hour?  If they are still working 80+ hours a week, like they were back when I interviewed there, then that’s only about $40 an hour. 

    That’s pretty much what I make, except that I have a 40 hour week, can stay home on holidays (even the bobo ones), and I can take my full 3 weeks vacation.  Honestly, I wouldn’t trade it for the world.

23. Posted by Len - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 23 hours, 31 minutes ago

    Terrible reporting by ABA Journal because the headline and article only mentions specific facts with regard to biglaw and THE TOP salary at a D.C. firm, but then generalizes to all associate pay and hours regardless of employer.

    Most first years make no where near this kind of money.

    To all those who burn 1900, 2000 or more billable hours and feel pressure to do more and more, there are alternatives. Life exists after law firms. It’s very nice out here.

24. Posted by Larry Rice - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 23 hours, 27 minutes ago

    Quit playing on the internet and get back to work.

25. Posted by Andrea - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 23 hours, 20 minutes ago

    Is anyone else noticing that all of the comments of Ellen Barshevsky on the various ABA stories seem to revolve around her boyfriend?

26. Posted by Good Question - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 23 hours, 8 minutes ago

    It cracks me up everytime someone posts an “insightful” complaint about the ABA’s articles.  Are you really expecting an in-depth dissertation on any of their chosen topics?  Like, really?  These articles are clearly the legal community’s version of Perez Hilton.

27. Posted by Kent Hanson - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 22 hours, 20 minutes ago

    Our small Minneapolis firm expects 1800 hours per year from associates.  We have A-list clients and a national practice.  Good opportunities are out there, with a genuine career path and real work/life balance, for those who are willing to look past the big firms and do not expect to make 6 figures right off the bat.

28. Posted by Renee - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 22 hours, 1 minute ago

    Kimball, you hit the nail on the head.  You can’t bill what isn’t there.  That’s my situation.  I have used this slow period to ramp up my client development efforts and it’s paying off.  I still expect to have an uncomfortable evaluation after the holidays.

29. Posted by Jeffrey A. Schwartz - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 21 hours, 58 minutes ago

    I notice that between those that state the billable model is broken and those that state the government is not the solution to our economic problems, no one states the logical conclusion: The breakdown of the model begins with the concept that the states should be able to require law school and bar passage as a condition to practicing law. All lawyers learn their trade by some combination of watching the other lawyers at their firms, or trial by fire situations that benefit no one.

    In a free county, you can roll out of bed on a Wednesday morning and decide to be a lawyer. You may NOT say you’re a law school graduate or that you passed the bar unless true, but the requirements for advocating on behalf of others likewise may NOT be determined by bureaucrats with vested interests in keeping the profession “exclusive”. Once the educational Ace of Spades is removed from the deck, the house of cards will finally tumble to where it belongs. Then people who want to pay a lawyer $25 an hour will have their needs fulfilled, and people who want to pay $500 will have theirs, and the market will work the way it should.

30. Posted by TLS - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 20 hours, 58 minutes ago

    So, the subprime market exists only because of the community investment regs and not because of (well, let’s see here) the desire to maximize profits and shareholder value? You’re a tool Josh, really.

    I’ll apologize in advance for typos, grammatical errors, and a somewhat superficial treatments of the players involved. I’ve got to get back to work (no, not a lawyer - yet):

    Follow the bouncing ball Josh:

    Investors want high returns, Fannie/Freddie supplied pools of securitized loans and subprimes had the best returns, so this is the demand side of the equation. Notice, it’s about profits - nothing wrong with that, right?

    Okay, all of these pools were rated as safe investments by agencies (Moody’s, Fitch, etc.) even though they were not (thus SUBprime). Yes, they knew they were garbage or, at best, that they had no legitimate way to rate them, but since Fannie/Freddie are GSE’s (that’s government sponsored entities), who cares, right? If something goes wrong, the government will most likely clean up the mess - full steam ahead! Of course, Fannie/Freddie themselves knew that these loans were crap because there was almost no underwriting going on - more on them later.

    Further on down the line, homebuilders and realtors used every ounce of political muscle they had to make sure that damn-near everyone could get a loan (once again, no underwriting). Plus, with their irrational cheerleading, the market kept getting pushed higher and higher (there is no real loss of value right now because the prices were artificially high). Enter the appraisers, who were more or less forced to hit these ridiculous numbers. Why forced? Well, an appraiser could resist, and then never work again. So, only those willing to play the game got work. It’s pretty amazing how appraisers have taken the most heat. It seems to me that they had the least amount of choice in this whole equation. But, anyway, Isn’t it funny how homebuilders and realtors (who helped set prices) are now “victims” of the subprime mess? Hmmmm. . . I’m pretty sure they created it.

    But did they? In 2005, a few Republicans wanted to put some regs on Fannie/Freddie, but the measure was blocked by Democrats, taking their cue from homebuliders and realtors. What would these regs have done? They would have capped Fannie/Freddie’s borrowing power at a level which would allow them to function as a conduit for the secondary market, but no higher. Instead, what happened? They BECAME the secondary market (Can you say Enron?), buying mortgages and holding them in their portfolio to the tune of about $3.6 trillion (more than the sum of all other corporate debt combined). That is the what created the systemic risk . . . even Greenspan warned Congress - repeatedly - about the potential consequences plus there were some great articles by the American Enterprise Institute and the Economist, etc. (i.e. non-mainstream media). Why buy and hold? Well, in 2004 Fannie/Freddie made roughly $5 billion on selling and $25 billion from it’s portfolio. Which would you grow to maximize your stock price and get fat bonuses? Exactly. Fannie/Freddie, as a GSE, gets favorable borrowing rates and then they buy the mortgages and make the spread. Genius, right? What about the risk? Oh, that’s right, GSE, too big to fail, the taxpayers will take it on the chin. Why wouldn’t you buy and hold as much as possible as quickly as possible and make as much money as possible before the (inevitable) hammer fell?

    Let’s not forget the borrowers - not the 1-2% that got duped into crap loans, but the other 98% who gambled and lost. Now, “nobody knew” what they were signing. I call B.S. At best, they could claim that the appraisal came in fine and the builder/realtor told them that real estate can only go up (talk about hearing what you want to hear). So, let’s call it willful ignorance on one hand or just more greed on the other - either way, quit whining about being taken to the cleaners when you were the one driving.

    So, who’s to blame? Take your pick. Who’s responsible? Politicians, of course, bought and paid for by realtors, homebuilders, and big business. Just follow the money. . . . it certainly doesn’t lead to subprime borrowers that banks were supposedly “forced” to lend to.

31. Posted by Great Idea - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 20 hours, 39 minutes ago

    Wow. That’s brilliant Mr. Schwartz.  Let’s just let every scam artist hang a shingle and claim they practice law, regardless of any minimum level of education or experience.  Of course, the people who would be hurt would be those lower income and more vulnerable people that couldn’t afford a “real lawyer.“  Sorry, a free market is a nice sound bite, but without some measure of regulation those who can least afford it will be the ones who pay the price when they are given shoddy (or non-existent) legal advice at a bargain rate.  Their needs will not be fulfilled.

32. Posted by XL - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 20 hours, 20 minutes ago

    Hadley V. Baxendale - “Focus as well on the area of law—some lend themselves to billing almost all hours at the desk; some have an attrition where hard as you try, you bill 75% of your work hours.“

    What are these areas?

33. Posted by Jeffrey A. Schwartz - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 20 hours, 8 minutes ago

    I was expecting some preposterous comment like this. The sanctimious true believers that think taking away choice and artifically inflating prices somehow protects consumers. The assumption that “those lower income and more vulnerable people” are idiots who are incapable of making sound decisions about whether to pick the shyster being investigated for fraud or go the next office over to consult with the advocate of unimpeachable reputation. The elitism taken as gospel that those of us who have become enlightened by three years of, for all practical purposes, useless education are the only ones bestowed with the gift of competent advocacy. The presupposition that everyone who hangs out a shingle without having attended law school is incompetent and does so to scam his clients with no sense of a selfless desire to help (and the concomitant position that everyone who has been to law school is a knight in shining armor with an unyielding desire to pursue justice no matter the cost). And meanwhile, you can NEVER satisfactorily answer the question: If I want a plumber to represent me in court, how is it possibly any of your business?

34. Posted by Jeffrey A. Schwartz - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 20 hours, 5 minutes ago

    Now that I can see my comment without having to scroll:

    “Sanctimonious”

35. Posted by Small Law - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 19 hours, 31 minutes ago

    The only way to make real big money in the law is to get trial experience at a mid-size firm or a prosecutor’s/public defender’s office and then open up your own practice.  Billable hours suck, so make sure you mix in some plaintiff’s personal injury or consumer fraud contingency work.  Contingency work is the only way to beat the billable hour and make a substantial amount of money.

36. Posted by Great Idea - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 19 hours, 23 minutes ago

    I do agree a three year education does not guarantee competence.  That is painfully obvious from many in the profession.  I have no doubt that one could become a competent lawyer merely because they are smart and desire to educate themsleves.  Unfortunately, there are more people out there that would just take advantage of the opportunity to hang a shingle.  There are many professions where this is so.  For example, in the early 1900s, anyone could say they were an oculist, with little education.  Some were competent, most were not.  Regulation of the profession is necessary, just as licensing of oculists, contractors and plumbers, to at least attempt to assure a minimum level of competence.  I have litigated on behalf of indigents who were bilked out of the little money they had by people pretending to be lawyers. They have lost their money, their homes and their dignity.  It’s not because they were idiots.  People who are bilked are not idiots. They may be trusting or unsophisticated, however, and not aware that when someone says he’s a lawyer (under your view of the world) they may not actually be a lawyer. 

    Oh, and yes, I believe I can satisfactorily answer your question.  I am an officer of the court.  I have a duty not just to my clients, but to the system of laws as a whole.  You may represent yourself if you want, that is your right.  But, you may not make a mockery of the system by allowing anyone, no matter how unqualified (such as your hypothetical plumber) to pretend to practice law.  In such a case, the justice system would suffer, and thus we as a society.

37. Posted by Tom - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 18 hours, 16 minutes ago

    Doesn’t your firm give you a sleeping bag as part of your signing bonus for nights you can’t leave the office?

    What’s wrong with working 80 hours a week for your $165,000 salary one year out of school?

    Typical liberal elitist snobs.

38. Posted by Jeff - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 18 hours, 13 minutes ago

    Re: Ronnie #19 above… I wholeheartedly agree.  The opportunities at small firms are where it’s at.  Once you get a little bit of experience, and you’ve proven yourself to be good, you have a lot of leverage.  Small firms generally find it extremely hard to compete against bigger firms for good talent.  So even if they pay you $50/hr, bill you for $300/ hr, and collect $200/hr, it’s still a good deal to them.  It’s all about leveraging time in the world of legal services.  And it’s increasingly hard to not just get, but to retain, good talent. 

    Best of luck to all you new attorneys out there.  My advice: either move to a small firm environment, or get some experience for a few years at a decent size firm, build relationships, then start your own firm…  Then will be your own boss and won’t have to deal with the politics of a bigger firm and forced to work ungodly hours.  Is it worth your marriage and/or your health problems from working so hard?

    These are the best years of your life.  If you don’t know your own time is truly worth, these firms will “steal” it from you and you’ll never get it back. The only difference will be is that they’ve billed (e.g. re-sold) your time for more money and you’ve helped the partners build their own mansions.  Funny thing is, I haven’t found a partner yet who can tell me how they are going to take all of these worldly toys with them in the end.  I guess I have a more purpose-driven life.  It’s all about being in the moment and the personal relationships you build and people you can help.  And relationships are what build your own practice too.  Don’t let these firms work you to death and not have any opportunity to regularly build relationships weekly / monthly.  Enough said!  All the best.

39. Posted by Peter - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 17 hours, 55 minutes ago

    I don’t care what the devotion - whether its to the noble practice of law or to the desire to roll around in money - whoever thinks its a good idea to do ANY ONE THING in excess of 80 hours a week should be committed.  Name one other thing, besides the fine art of relaxation, that can be done for 80 hours in a week that does not cause a mental breakdown, soreness, redness, or an overwhelming tiredness felt from head to toe—I dare you.

40. Posted by Jeffrey A. Schwartz - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 17 hours, 21 minutes ago

    #35. Just proving my point and digging yourself in deeper. You are a true believer. Attending law school may not be the difference between competence and incompetence (as you say), but apparently it IS the difference between honesty and confidence crimes, You believe that the system needs to be protected so you justify protecting it by protecting it. You have answered my question satisfactorily TO YOURSELF, but not to me! Nothing I do is any of your business unless it involves the use of force or fraud against you. If I want a plumber, teacher, garbage collector, it’s none of your business. To say that I have the right to hire the ATTORNEY of my choice is to give me no choice at all. I have to play in the system that’s designed by attorneys for attorneys, or I can go get some vigilante justice that, simply because it’s “outside the system”, subjects me to penalties EVEN IF ACTUAL JUSTICE THAT I WOULDN’T HAVE OBTAINED WITHIN THE SYSTEM IS THE RESULT. Who has the bigger stake in piling up billable hours that do nothing to vindicate the client’s rights—the former student that owes $200k or the debt free entrepreneur that relies on good word of mouth to get business in the first place?

    You state: “I have litigated on behalf of indigents who were bilked out of the little money they had by people pretending to be lawyers.“ But HOW CAN THAT BE?!? We live in a society that regulates lawyers so these people must have been—**gasp**—DISHONEST! Of course, if “being a lawyer” did not come with the state’s imprimatur of competence and trustworthiness, maybe the indigents you represented would have taken the time to check out the conman’s reputation first before diving in. Ah, but personal responsibility, we can’t have that. So we “regulate”—which by your own testimony, does NOTHING to keep indigents from being bilked.

    If you’re so all fired up about regulation, then why isn’t the profession regulated the same way every other profession is—by the legislature?

41. Posted by Tom S - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 16 hours, 59 minutes ago

    If clients were able to actually evaluate legal ability and effectiveness, they could feel comfortable going with a smaller firm that has excellent attorneys.  Then you might see some change in this god-forsaken model.  As it is, they have no real way of evaluating legal performance, so if they have the money, they go with the most reputable/expensive firm, which must be the best.  Then if the case is lost or deal bungled, the person choosing the firm can’t be blamed.  Meanwhile these firms have outrageous overhead, large portions of which do nothing to provide the client with better service.

42. Posted by Great Idea - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 16 hours, 49 minutes ago

    I’ll try to spell it out for you in simple terms:  (1) Attending law school is not the difference between honesty or dishonesty.  The problem is if you have no barriers to entry (i.e. minimum qualification standards) you have nothing to prevent the dishonest folks from bilking poor honest people out of their money or worse.  (2)  It is my business, and everyone else’s business who pays taxes whether you have people clogging up the courts and judicial system that are not qualified to be there.  We all have an interest in a properly functioning judicial system; and can’t let nutballs like you have their mechanic representing them in court.  (3) The people I represented were bilked by someone claming they were a lawyer; when in fact they were not and were not qualified to be.  They ended up losing their homes by taking this person’s advice, who then took their money.  (4) The profession is regulated differently in each state.  Whether it’s the legislature, or otherwise, doesn’t matter.  The point is simply as with any profession, you need to assure minimal qualifications.  I suppose you could have a brain surgeon operate on YOU, just because he “learned” how to do it watching TV.  Well, I suppose as long as he discloses it and YOU’RE fully informed.  Go for it.

43. Posted by Peter - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 16 hours, 43 minutes ago

    This all sounds like spending your living years in hell to me; learn what you can while you’re working for someone else and then start your own firm.

44. Posted by Jeff Schwartz - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 15 hours, 5 minutes ago

    Thanks for the simple terms, otherwise my mind wouldn’t have been able to wrap itself around the fact that you haven’t got a clue. You are all for attorney regulation and regulation is, in fact, what we have in all 50 states. Necessary, as you state, because “The problem is if you have no barriers to entry (i.e. minimum qualification standards) you have nothing to prevent the dishonest folks from bilking poor honest people out of their money or worse.“ This is a direct quote of what you just wrote up above. So we have minimum standards, and yet you represented people who were bilked by someone claiming to be a lawyer. Your story, and I believe it happened.

    So it’s a damn good thing we have those regulations requiring those minimal qualifications. Because otherwise you might have people claming to be lawyers when they aren’t and they could end up bilking poor honest folks out of their houses and money. But at least we have regulations the prevent that sort of thing. Because if we didn’t then people might falsely claim to be lawyers and bilk people out of house and home. Thank goodness for those regulations. I wouldn’t want someone claiming to be a lawyer to bilk me.

45. Posted by Jeff Schwartz - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 15 hours, 1 minute ago

    For #40: You raise a good point. But there’s a big difference between picking a lawyer just because he graduated from law school and used his European backpacking money to put an ad in the Yellow Pages, and picking one on reputation. If you ask 25 people you trust to recommend a good lawyer for your problem, then you’ve done your best. The firm with the great reputation MIGHT screw up your case—you have to accept the possibility that humans will act like humans and anyone can make a mistake. Fortunately, most communities are small enough where the best attorneys have the best reputations, regardless of cost.

46. Posted by Jim H. - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 14 hours, 58 minutes ago

    To those of you saying people don’t have a right to complain about long hours coming right out of law school making extremely high salaries, to an extent you are right.  That is why I am happy to trade income for a normal 40 hour week, and am currently looking for public sectors at a salary of 65-70K as a result.  My car may not be as nice as a result, but I’ll get to drive it somewhere other than the office.

    And actually, I’d love to consider law firms if they’d offer me the same deal.  60-70K salary (I have 2 years experience, with real litigation involved, mind you), normal work week   But they won’t.  They only want people who buy into the sweatshop culture.

47. Posted by Willem DeDonis - 1 month, 2 weeks, 2 days, 21 hours, 59 minutes ago

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but there are worse things than being Barshevsky’s boyfriend.  The father seems to be loaded, and, if you can believe it, Barshevsky must be at least attractive, and she has a job.  The boyfriend seems to be in it for the long haul, so there must be something good in it for him.  I think the only negative is that she voices her opinion on everything, in consutation with the boyfriend.  Best for her to form her own opinions.

48. Posted by Jennifer Morales - 1 month, 2 weeks, 2 days, 21 hours, 5 minutes ago

    I went to law school thinking I could make more money than I did as a nurse in the healthcare industry. I graduated in 2004, and passed the bar exam on my 3rd attempt. Do you know what I’m doing now? I am still working in healthcare. I’m making 60K a year doing quality assurance work for a home health.  In retrospect, I wish I could have gone to Medical School instead.  Healthcare is where the money is at.

49. Posted by DCEsq. - 1 month, 2 weeks, 2 days, 20 hours, 53 minutes ago

    I agree with the observation that the entire system of large law firm prestige - the salary mystique - is, as was remarked, a “house of cards” poised to crumble if a client rebellion takes place in the face of our hard economic times.  For that matter, the house of cards has a big-tent roof covering inflated law professor salaries (an ingredient in huge law school debts), inflated property values, and, quite frankly, the entire Wall Street aparatus.  That house of cards is poised to fall when blown by the breath of forces that challenge the basic value that has forever been offered up as the rightful due of so-called professionals.

    The only ones who should express surprise are those who subscribed to the idea that so-called “professional work” had any kind of fixed value (due in part to ardurous preparation) that was superior to the knowledge required to plant corn or weld a widget.  You wanted capitalism?  You got your capitalism - though I won’t go so far as to say this is an “ownership society” as some comment claimed above.  I don’t know how that statement can be made with a straight face these days.

50. Posted by LudaXrist - 1 month, 2 weeks, 1 day, 15 hours, 15 minutes ago

    #48 DCEsq, your observations are correct.  Too bad 90% of the lawyers I meet in DC are not of like persuasion.  Ownership society—what a joke. FUgly houses made of wooden planks and paper that you have to bleed to come up with mortgage payment for—Don’t need that.

    Big yard away from the world in the woods, in the middle of nowhere, hearing wolves and predators lurking around.  Who needs that?—Not me.

    Isolation, $12,000 on credit cards spent on dumb tradition christmas present.  Who needs that?—Not me.

    Bitching against illegal immigrants when a 3 billion/day war is going on that no one knows why.  Who needs that?—not me.

    Mortgage-backed securities on the same shoddily-made, American-dream-praised, Fugl, stinky homes all around the North America.  Who bought into that nonsense?—Not me.

    Big ass, fugly, inefficient, gas guzzlers…Who need that?—Not me.

    Now face it, this country has been built on nothing but lies, and more lies, and the freedom and opportunity it once stood for, have turned into a farce. 

    Sad state of events, my countryman.  Save your money, stop buying your bitchy women those Fugly diamond rings, only to divorce them 3 years later.  Start looking at how other countries are doing certain things, and copy the good things they’ve come up with.

    I have a news and it’s bad,  you have been severely brain washed.

    Now, the next financial debacle is going to unroll from credit derivatives.  Just watch it!

    Banks are intertwined, the whole freaking globe is intertwined, there is no safe heaven…It is going to be a mess, and I am usually and optimist.

    So, stay wherever you are at, whatever job you have got hold on to it, for as LOOOONG as possible, kiss major partner ass, lose weight, get penis implants, boob jobs, whatever it takes, but stay at that darn job, cuz it puts the bread on the table.  And when the cash flow stops coming, it gets ugly, my country men, real ugly.  New Orleans-after-hurricane-Kathrina-ugly.

51. Posted by Dale - 1 month, 2 weeks, 1 day, 13 hours, 5 minutes ago

    Hey guys!

    You’re making me sad!  I am a 3L grandma with a nursing career behind me.  I’m in this profession to leave things a little better for the ones coming after me.

    I hear what you are saying and I’m paying attention.  I know things are difficult in many ways.

    We can’t lose our vision.  We started out with just a dream and some ideas for a governmental system we thought would work well.  It’s still the best system of law in the history of the world.

    We can take care of it and transmit it safely to the next generation.  We just have to remember that John Locke’s definition of “happiness” was much like that of Blackstone:  it had to do with aligning your purpose to something higher and outside of your own interests.

    There is still nobility in the practice of law.

52. Posted by HVB - 1 month, 1 week, 6 days, 18 hours, 24 minutes ago

    Re: “unproductive” areas of practice:  Litigators who sit in a six hour deposition bill 6 hours.  Same with working on large projects of document review, research, etc.  But if you handle 40 open files and the tasks on them are often 15 minutes or less throughout the day—such as work involving a lot of phone calls, emails, short correspondence, your time is worn by attrition and it won’t all get on the time sheet And shouldn’t.  Ten minutes to receive and forward an item, at $240/hour, is not worth $48.00, so it shouldn’t go on the time sheet, but it is your time.  And the larger the firm, the less likely they are to equalize the work at the end of the year to make up for the attrition.  Choose wisely.

53. Posted by Stephanie - 1 month, 1 week, 4 days, 10 hours, 13 minutes ago

    I’d like to put it on record that very few people are making that outrageous $180K starting salary.  It’s just stupid for people to think anything above $100K is the norm.  An earlier article published by the ABA reported 1-3 years associates were making an average 55K-65K per year.  I am only making this amount as a first year associate.  And trust me, I’m certainly worth the money I’m making.  I spent nearly $200K on my education and I expect to paid for it.