|
Petey posted:I was talking to an undergrad today after a lab meeting. She's an econ major and I asked her what she was planning to do after college. "Well, I used to think I wanted to be an investment banker," she said, "but I've been reading Too Big To Fail and other books and they just seem like terrible people. Obsessed with prestige and taking advantage of folks and work consuming their lives." If you have no work, it can't consume your life. Sounds like a good decision. 
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2013 07:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:08 |
|
|
Jacobin posted:http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-twenty-year-drop.html Yeah, but, assuming I'm reading it accurately, arguably the figures don't prove much in any direction, since the population of undergraduate students has changed significantly as well. The University of Phoenix alone, for example, now graduates thousands of undergraduate students every year, and I suspect very few of those apply to law school.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2013 07:00
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:They outright admit that the Simulated MBE they give is intentionally more difficult than the true MBE. The results on the MBE vs. the essay results made me even more skeptical given I got a 140 (93rd percentile nationally) on their Simulated MBE, but my essay scores are only marginally in the passing range. Your mental health doesn't help their pass rate. What does help their pass rate is ensuring that you're on edge enough to keep studying constantly (and from your posting, it sounds like it's working).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
I wouldn't go into it in your cover letter--it would only serve to highlight it, assuming they read it at all, and it will just come off as excuses. As for whether to put it on your resume. . .I'm not sure what to tell you. Maybe put it on, but leave out the class rank information? Alternatively, and I realize this sounds harsh, but. . .maybe drop out? The market for attorneys is awful enough as it is, and adding 2+ years of debt won't help. Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Feb 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
Shifood posted:Thanks for your advice SJF. I think I'll stay in though, last semester really was an outlier and I think my improvement this semester will help show that in time for Fall OCIs, assuming I can get a decent job this summer. Well, you're probably in for this semester anyway, but please think about it, particularly if this semester doesn't go your way. The legal job market is very numbers-driven, in a very nasty and unforgiving way (as in, many firms won't look any further if a student's class rank is below a certain figure). I don't want you making the same mistake that many others have made, and be left trying to figure out how to pay back six figures of student loan debt on $9 an hour (or whatever). Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Feb 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2013 05:33
|
|
|
To counter the flood of "don't worry about your grades, it'll all work out in the end, just keep paying your tuition," I'll just mention my friend who graduated May 2011 from our Tier 1 law school. Last I heard (August 2012), he was living with his parents and looking for a retail job for the holidays because the doc review places wouldn't call him back.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2013 09:27
|
|
|
HolySwissCheese posted:His position is kind of liberating. He'll never earn enough money to ever pay his loans. So long as his parents are willing to let him live there, he should just go start a company or volunteer at a nonprofit or something. Start a business doing what, with what capital? In any case, the point isn't that he's screwed for ever and ever, he might as well shoot himself now; the point is that law school has resulted in the loss of four years of productive earning capacity and (at least) IBR-level loan payments for the the next 25 years (assuming IBR remains in place for the next 25 years). It also closes off other paths, since it's going to be a lot harder now for him to go back to school to do anything else, and because non-legal employers are just going to assume he's going to leave for that awesome lawyer job. But please don't turn this into a "he should really do X" thing, I'm not in any kind of regular contact with him now and I can't really speak for him in terms of what are viable options. (That's what tends to happen after law school, unfortunately--the successful ones are more than happy to tell you, Facebook, LinkedIn, and anyone else about their adventures. The unsuccessful ones just fade away.) Nor do I know whether his parents are willing to let him live there indefinitely. Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Feb 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:FWIW: You can start an operating functional firm with like $500. Theoretically, yes; I think he had mentioned that possibility. But the failure rate for solo practices, much less solo practices straight out of law school, is insanely high, and he has no business experience (that I know of, anyway). And yes, "I wouldn't know the first thing to do" might have been mentioned a few times. Also the word "malpractice." And what Evilweasel said. I do know a few people from my class who have tried solo practice. Of the two I can think of off the top of my head, one also lives with his parents and the other one lives with his girlfriend, who I think is bringing in most of the income at present. That's not to say it's impossible, though. (I don't want to make it sound like it's a wasteland for my class or anything--I know plenty who wound up in Big Law, small firm, and government and public interest work that either pays well or has "psychic rewards." Also many that are in work that may not pay so well, but is at least a full-time legal job. But when it goes wrong. . .) I guess I should mention, I'm personally employed as an analyst, so I mostly just watch from the sidelines as the legal profession eats itself. That said, I'll admit to a certain amount of background fear of what would happen if I ever lost my current job. Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Feb 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:I did it and I'm in super profitability land, 3 years in. BUT... I knew the business side, knew customer service, had contacts, had a mentor in the practice area... without any of which I would have failed. This guy would likely fail unless he went berserk studying the business model for a certain type of practice (divorce, real estate closings, etc). Which is basically saying he would definitely fail. I think part of his worry about "malpractice" was simply not wanting to screw up someone's case, not necessarily getting in trouble for it, although I'm sure that was a concern too. I think "I just know the successes so it's a self-selecting population" is pretty true of most law communities, online or not. People are far more likely to talk about their success than their failure.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 09:46
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Basically, if Heymann was over aggressive, all prosecutors are over aggressive. They. . .kinda are? I mean, Swartz isn't a great poster child for it, and it may be unfair to single out Heymann personally, but I can't say I'm particularly upset about seeing the issue of coercive plea bargaining getting some attention (and, let's face it, middle or upper class dude with connections is probably the best chance for it to get any publicity, even if he doesn't fit the profile of the vast majority of victims). Long as we're linking law profs: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/interviews/langbein.html Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Feb 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2013 06:57
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I don't disagree. The system has problems. But Swartz was a terrible example, since he actually didnt face the kind of bargain random lower class accused face, and the people complaining are complaining about prosecutorial misconduct in this specific case, not about the general concept. They're not saying prosecutors are overly aggressive - they're saying this specific prosecutor was overly aggressive against an Internet baby because Internet freedom. Right, but again, that's really the only way the problem will get attention, if "middle or upper class dude with connections" gets in trouble. So, of course the attention will mostly focus on that one case, but the hope is that it raises the issue in the minds of people who would otherwise not be exposed to it at all. And no, he's not a great example, as again I pointed out, but he's what we've got. In fact, to the extent it permits those who do know about the problem to say "well, yeah, but that's common practice/even worse for poor people/etc." it at least lets those views be aired. Now, admittedly, it's less a matter of Heymann being overly aggressive than of the system as a whole being overly aggressive, because that's the way the system is currently designed, but that's why I said it was maybe unfair to single out Heymann personally. What he did may be no more than what prosecutors ordinarily do, and it can still be overly aggressive. And I'm not entirely sure how the substantive analysis of the law makes a better argument regarding the application of prosecutorial discretion. Here's James Boyle's response to Orin Kerr, which is well worth reading: http://www.thepublicdomain.org/2013/01/18/the-prosecution-of-aaron-a-response-to-orin-kerr/ Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Feb 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2013 16:07
|
|
|
quote not edit
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:I just don't get it... Of course a person can go to jail for "ticky tacky felonies." The question is whether they should, and that's where the issue of prosecutorial discretion enters the picture. The prosecutor can choose what charges to bring, and what punishments to seek. Quoting Boyle: quote:To put it differently, I think Orin’s postings would have been more accurate had he said. “The facts in this case are hotly disputed. The defense argues that a prosecution for violating code-based restrictions is unreasonable and unfounded and that the prosecutor would have to rely against a theory about terms of use that I have specifically condemned in the past (and which the defense also argues is factually implausible.) The prosecution offers a very different account in which Aaron violated both terms of use and code based restrictions. I should note that this point is relevant not only to the application of the law, but to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Losing your wedding ring at the beach could be prosecuted as littering, but the degree to which the facts – while technically fitting the legal definitions – do not actually seem to fit the spirit, is something most prosecutors I know would want to consider. My point is not that the result of that inquiry at trial would inevitably favor Aaron – I don’t know, and I don’t think Orin does either – it is that Orin’s account of the facts sounds more conclusory than I think the evidence warrants. Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Feb 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:There's no mens rea with losing your ring at the beach. But Schwartz was a giant ball of mens rea. The prosecution may have had difficulties proving the technical act due to a lack of MIT user agreement. But what Schwartz did is definitely against the "spirit" of computer fraud crimes. Whether or not he technically committed computer/wire fraud, he certainly intended to. I'm not sure how mens rea enters into it, since the point isn't that the actions were exactly comparable. I'm sure we can all think of things that would technically violate the law, but shouldn't be prosecuted (or at least not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law), even if done with intent. Do you believe that what he did warranted 35 years (or more) in prison? Granted, the prosecutor offered a six-month plea deal, but that's kind of the point: prosecutor overcharges defendant with massive potential sentence in order to coerce a plea deal. Said plea deal prevents a potentially meritorious case from reaching trial, and leaves defendant with no recourse except to accept the deal. In a case in which even the alleged victim was against criminal charges, where the law is at best not entirely settled, and where the defendant made no profit from his actions, that seems over-aggressive to me. As Langbein points out, though, that's the problem with the system. This isn't really the Aaron Swartz thread, though, so this may be getting to be a bit of a derail.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Only in the 1st and 7th Circuits, at this point. The 9th mostly has rejected that and I believe the 2nd has as well.   loving hicks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:If you have a job you may be on billable hour 21 on Monday morning of a three day weekend. Or, you could have an ordinary 9-to-5 job, have got up at 11, and currently be spending your time pondering such weighty questions as "How many hours of SA forums posts have been billed to clients over the years?" Of course, then you don't make the Big Law bucks, so six of one, half a dozen of the other, don't go to law school.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:Inefficiency in a law firm?!?!? It's almost as though they want to spend an unnecessary amount of hours on it. What fools!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:If you wanna practice tax in the US, you have to get yourself a really sweet cowboy hat. I thought that was lawyers who advertise on late-night television about how they will GET YOU THE MONEY YOU DESERVE!!!!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
So apparently "no jobs, die alone" is starting to hit academia: http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2013/02/are-we-sustaining-a-vap-trap.html
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
Petey posted:Hey look, it's more validation for my decision to not go down the JD/PhD route. The comments are. . .enlightening  :quote:Head hunter: You're too senior for firms to want you as a new associate, and you don't have any business to come in as a partner. You've also been away from private practice long enough for it to be a problem. Firms are going to think you won't be willing to bill 2200 hours again. They're also going to think that you'll get bored doing "normal" cases. Oh, and they're going to be concerned that you won't work well with partners who don't have your academic or professional credentials. I hate to break it to you, but if you have to stay in this market, you might need to start looking at staff attorney jobs. Maybe even non-doc review contract work. quote:Thanks for the suggestions about the survey. I have to do a bit of thinking about how to implement them effectively. quote:I'm a failed VAP, with all the standard credentials, good program, and no real reason I shouldn't have placed somewhere. A lot of VAPs placed, somewhere, I guess, but there are plenty of good folks left with no chairs when the music stopped, people I am shocked didn't place. quote:I had about a dozen AALS interviews that translated into zero offers, and it's not because I'm a bad interviewee. I do know of at least one person who turned down a TT offer at a T4 school because of the reasons stated above... probably that school will close in 5 years and then the candidate would be extra screwed. At that point, you definitely can't go back to practice and you probably can't lateral. quote:Legal hiring is a black box, and these VAP programs only enhance the opacity. The thing about these VAPs is that we think that if we have these magical credentials and place well enough (which plenty of us did), you'll get a job somewhere. Maybe it was true when I started my VAP, maybe it wasn't. Who knows? Back then, the horror stories were about T4 schools, but now that would be a welcome option. I especially question the ethics of low-ranked VAP programs, especially if they do not plan to convert VAPs to tenure-track. I agree the more useful list would be of us, the failures, but I'm just trying to keep my kid fed now. My dream is dead, and maybe my career is too. quote:I am going to echo several earlier comments: hang on to your law firm job for as long as possible – even if it seems like a complete dead end. It’s a game of survival – one day at a time. The law school I’m at is currently interviewing VAP candidates, and they seem to excited about being paid 60K a year for an uncertain shot at a tenure-track position rather than keeping their 200K+ jobs with top law firms. Do a VAP only if you have nothing to lose (like the situation I was in - essentially, legal freelancing for very little money.) If you want to publish and keep you future options open, that’s fine, but try sticking to something practice-relevant (yes, even an “academic” article may be practice-relevant). With the kind of dishonesty and deception many law schools in all tiers are practicing and the general outlook for legal education, a career in law teaching perhaps should be avoided at all costs. Also, re: PhD route: http://chronicle.com/article/From-Graduate-School-to/131795/ Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Feb 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
In other news, Brian Leiter is a giant, gaping rear end in a top hat: http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/03/brian-leiters-slow-motion-car-crash http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/03/whats-going-on-in-the-faculty-lounge Oh God, I'm on a list now, aren't I? 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
Jacobin posted:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/education/law-schools-look-to-medical-education-model.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=US_TPG_20130307&_r=1& Well, the article mentions one fairly obvious one--they intend to charge $125 an hour. While that is likely cheaper than the going rate, I'm not sure how much it will do for genuinely underserved populations rather than just competing with small law firms and solos for the same pool of business.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
nm posted:Yeah, one thing you learn in indigent defense is that for many people $20 might as well be a million If I were a solo practitioner or a member of a small law firm in Phoenix (which, thank god I'm not) I would be up in arms about it. quote:The Arizona State approach, called the Alumni Law Group, appears to be the most ambitious because of the number of lawyers it will employ (30), its projected cost (a commercial firm of comparable size would cost $5 million a year to run, according to the school’s projections) and its hope to be self-sufficient in a couple of years by charging for its services and gathering donations. So, essentially they want to introduce a large, subsidized competitor into the market that doesn't have the same concerns about profit or overhead. Actually underserved populations will likely mostly still be unable to afford the services, but people currently paying the solo and small firm rates may switch their business over, if they are willing to trust a group of new graduates. My guess is, the most likely result will be somewhat improved employment figures for Arizona State (at least, the all-important initial employment numbers) at the cost of cutting further into the amount of lower-end, but still paying, legal business available in the Phoenix market. Maybe there's a more charitable way of looking at this, but that's my initial impression.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
joat mon posted:At least around here, if you can make bail, you can't get a PD. So if you're working poor and you and your family were able to scrape up $500 or $1000 to pay a bondsman, you haven't got anything left for an attorney who is worth half a crap - but you don't rate a PD. Yeah, there may be a small number of cases like that. I'm just not sure that there are likely to be many that can afford $125 an hour, but can't afford $250 an hour, at least that there are anywhere near enough to support the addition of 30 attorneys to the market. And, I'm not sure they're likely to be able to draw a distinction between those who fall in that category and those who are simply seeking a cheaper legal services provider. But, I could be wrong. This quote from the article, though, seems to confirm my suspicions: quote:“We charge $50 an hour, and I don’t take any pay,” said Dennis A. Gladwell, who runs a smaller firm at the University of Utah with a staff of five graduates started 16 months ago. “If you are going to charge $125, you are not going to serve an underserved population.” Mr. Gladwell, who retired as a partner from the big firm of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, also said that despite having asked top local firms to send along cases they considered too small for themselves, none responded. There are a number of other details about the program that I'd be interested in knowing, too, such as how they calculated the "going rate," how and how much they intend to pay those new graduates, etc. Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 09:20 on Mar 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2013 07:09
|
|
|
Petey posted:And today in "transparent attempts to game the USN&WR rankings": Um, no offense, but you might want to read the rest of the page. . .
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2013 09:34
|
|
|
Pop Goes the Law: http://chronicle.com/article/Pop-Goes-the-Law/137717/?cid=cr&utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en Doesn't really say anything new, but a nice summary.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
Kalman posted:IBR reduces a lot of the concern regarding that, though - if you're making 40k, you aren't paying 1k/mo. Just means you have a permanent 10% pay cut, that's all! Assuming IBR lasts for the next 25 years, of course, which isn't really guaranteed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:whiskey, a noose and a chair Attorneys that have passed the patent bar aren't quite in the same position as other attorneys employment-wise. They may be able to wait until they know what it's like to be a patent attorney before going the "whiskey, noose, and chair" route (or so I'm led to believe).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Patent lawyers made a list of "most overpaid jobs" I read a couple days ago. I read what I presume is the same list. This is their methodology: quote:PayScale.com, which conducts detailed surveys on compensation, sorted data on thousands of occupations by three variables, each weighted equally: total median cash compensation for a worker with 10 years of experience or more, relative to the median for all jobs; the degree of job stress workers report in each field; and how meaningful workers say their job is. Jobs with high relative pay, low stress and low meaningful ratings were rated as "overpaid," while jobs with low relative pay, high stress and high meaningful ratings were rated as "underpaid." http://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-most-overpaid-jobs-140119420.html So. . .
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Paramour posted:http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=northweastern And that doesn't get into what kind of full-time legal jobs those are.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2013 08:00
|
|
|
Defleshed posted:I don't really post in/read this thread anymore, but I spent some time doing a little mini-writeup about the JAG Corps for a thread in GiP. If you want to add it to the OP, feel free. Along those lines, there are some things in the OP that could do with an update. Most of it seems to be from ~2009.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
MoFauxHawk posted:Oh hey, look at this $499,000 house one block from the bar whose club you play rugby for that's also one block from the most fun metro stop in DC... http://www.trulia.com/property/3028232330-2110-Vermont-Ave-NW-Washington-DC-20001 That's what you get for $500K? 1170 sq. ft. is tiny.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
MoFauxHawk posted:Right, but it's as desirable of a location as you can get in DC. Though the nightlife noise might be a problem. U. St. is the best place. Amazing food and arguably the best nightlife in DC. Hundreds of amazing and interesting restaurants and local fast food places within a ten minute walking radius. And as the green line gets more gentrified, U St. values will go up. Plus it has a little yard! I could have found a 2k sq. ft. house for the same price in a decent but not as good location in DC, I'm sure. If you're looking to have kids, though, which I'm assuming Baruch is since his wife is interested in school quality, you might want more space than that (and amazing nightlife will be less important).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
And Forbes's #1 Unhappiest Job is. . . http://www.forbes.com/pictures/efkk45ehffl/no-1-unhappiest-job-associate-attorney/
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:I just saw a job posting for Assistant City Attorney/Custodian. So... not sure what to make of that. Probably Custodian of Records or something like that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 07:00
|
|
|
quote:“I hear we are already 200k over our estimate—that’s Team DLA Piper!” wrote then-DLA Piper partner Erich P. Eisenegger in one email. http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/sued_by_dla_piper_for_675k_ex-client_discovers_lighthearted_churn_that_bill/
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
Also, the ABA's idea of employment figures for the class of 2012 is out and, well. . .
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
HolySwissCheese posted:IBR is based on prior year's tax return (so two years ago's income) Married, 4 kids, unemployed spouse would do it too, according to the Dept of Ed's calculator. So, something to think about.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:I need to pick a book to put into my school's law library. It's the same thing HiddenReplaced had to do two years ago. Any ideas? http://www.amazon.com/Failing-Law-Schools-Chicago-Society/dp/0226923614 or http://www.amazon.com/The-Lawyer-Bubble-Profession-Crisis/dp/0465058779
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:08 |
|
|
Picky question that has generated some dispute--should it be "attorneys' fees" or "attorney's fees" or "attorney fees"?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 21:32
|
|