|
Doesn't GW have a career services office? Most schools' offices will help out their alumni. Also, how did you get through law school without learning anything about the job search?
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
I went to W&M, and it's really just Wawa.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:I know I've asked this a bunch of times, but are you guys really that loving depressed about it? Law school was awful, I hated every second, and wouldn't recommend it to anyone who isn't getting a full ride at a T14, but I don't particularly hate the work. Is it mostly the debt that has most of you so morose? I'm with you. Law school was a huge waste of time and I don't understand anyone who enjoyed it. Practicing is pretty good, though. I'm at a mid-size litigation boutique, and it beats the hell out of being an engineer for a defense contractor, I'll say that much. Some days are rough, but overall it's more good than bad. I'm not looking for ~spiritual fulfillment~ in my career, though... Call me old-fashioned, but it's work, it's not supposed to be self-affirming and fun and games and all that. But yeah, most people should still not go to law school.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:Are you still in law school? Speaking from the hiring side, what you said is inaccurate. While having a secondary journal isn't going to get you a SCOTUS clerkship, it is certainly better than not having one (because not having one makes you look stupid/lazy). Yeah, this is pretty much how it worked at my school as well. The 2Ls that didn't do moot court or a journal either (a) wanted to do public interest or criminal work and already had a connection that could make that happen or (b) got spanked in the job search and are now unemployed or working outside the legal field. In fact, other than the BigLaw firms, most employers didn't seem to particularly care whether you were on law review or some other miscellaneous journal. I went to William & Mary though, so it might be different at significantly "better" or "worse" schools.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
wacko_- posted:Didn't even bother applying for a secondary journal when they were asking for writing samples no matter who you were. Didn't make the cut for moot court. Truly living the dream. 
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:Just to make a pitch for law review, I was not really into the idea at all when I did my writing competition. A year later, I've actually found it pretty enjoyable. Sure, there's a lot of tedium, but the work is usually at least somewhat interesting and the people are cool. I think it's been a valuable experience and, if nothing else, I can bluebook like a motherfucker. Your school's law review must have been very different from mine...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
Omerta posted:Construction stuff is cool too. I do construction litigation and it's pretty good, relatively. The legal issues are relatively concrete and limited, but the facts are an endless parade of companies screwing up big projects. We also handle government contracts cases, so there's the bonus of wrangling with the FAR and state equivalents. Add in surety work and it's great fun (disclaimer: may not be great fun). I'd imagine it gets bleak as you move down the chain, though. Representing deadbeat subcontractors and suppliers and arguing that no, they weren't in default when they abandoned the work site entirely, filing mechanic's liens, etc. must get old. The downside is that our clients are huge so client development is effectively hopeless unless your buddy starts a huge general contracting firm or surety or something, but I'll worry about that if I last long enough to be up for an equity share.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:I've enjoyed all the construction defect stuff I've done. The law in my state is pretty reasonable, but mostly I enjoy it because contractors are largely gruff, direct country boys, which is a refreshingly welcome departure from dealing with wannabe shark douchebag attorneys in French cuffs. Yeah, I forgot to mention the clients can be pretty entertaining. Another bonus is that we don't have to deal with crackpot clients/parties like the sovereign citizen guys, though that might make for a fun change of pace.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
Solid Lizzie posted:Isn't the FAR like, a tremendous pain in the rear end? My fed. gov't contracts professor bitched about it all the time. A little, and there's all sorts of policy issues one could argue, but from a practitioner's viewpoint it's a standard set of contract language that is very easy to research and has effectively one set of courts issuing relevant decisions. If you've ever gotten frustrated looking for a decision interpreting language similar to something your special snowflake client drafted themselves on a lark, then working with the FAR is a nice change of pace. Government contracts in general seems like a fairly robust and stable body of law. All that said, from a contractor's point of view, FAR compliance and government contracting seems like an expensive nightmare.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:So you're saying in terms of the actual legal work, dealing with insurance is the worst? Coverage work seems boring, but it's still just contract law. As for insurance defense, aren't they just litigating slip & fall and car accidents...so what? What's so terrible about that? I believe the issue is that working insurance defense, you are sure to eventually represent a soulless corporation against an individual who legitimately got their life screwed up by that company's negligence, and probably win. If the insurance companies try to dick people like that over anywhere near as much as they do their own customers, I can imagine it would be tough work. At least, that's the impression I got from an OCI with a large insurance defense firm (edit: in which the interviewer unironically said "big companies are being crushed by plaintiff's attorneys"). Their clients are all large corporations. the milk machine fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Jun 13, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
joat mon posted:"No, your grandpa's infected decubitous ulcer wasn't because he was left lying in his own waste for three shifts, and it's not suspicious at all that the 'checked' entries are all written in the same pen by the same person who wasn't actually on shift for several of those checks. He was just old. You have my sympathy."  You're stronger than me. I'm so glad that OCI didn't result in a callback / I pretty much immediately wrote that firm off.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
Solid Lizzie posted:I have been avoiding law students ('lol i tattooed the elements of blah blah on my forehead so i can study while brushing my teef' yeah okay), working out and taking some time to watch a movie or play a game or something. I try to remember it's not a bad first world problem. This was my strategy for all three years of law school and it worked out pretty alright for me (other than being a lawyer now, hm)...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2013 14:58
|
|
|
Eminent Domain posted:I think the only thing about bar prep I can enjoy right now is just seeing the questions in criminal law that go from an ordinary situation and then utter chaos. Either that or all the cracks at other SEC teams the LA examiner seems to be slipping in there. I still remember my favorite practice essay question from studying for the Virginia bar last year. It sets up a convoluted family tree of slack-jawed yokels, has most of them die from things like lead poisoning from moonshine, a still explosion, crushed to death by a bag of corn, fell off the stands at a demolition derby, and so on, then you figure out who takes what. Since I'm pretty sure BarBri just uses old essay questions, I think the Virginia bar examiners might be in on the joke.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2013 14:54
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:I'm a dumb stupid idiot and don't know what to do with my life, and I think the main reason why law school has appeal to me is because I imagine that having a law degree could make me seem more credible as a political activist/revolutionary. Absolutely 100% do not go to law school. If you actually wanted to be a lawyer that would be one thing, but this is not a great idea. the milk machine fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jul 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
An acquaintance of mine from undergrad just loves doubling down. This person went to a Tier 4 law school, did an LLM, spent a couple years practicing, and now is going to med school. At Caribbean Medical University School of Medicine.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
Adar posted:After a certain point, why not? Not like 500K is any worse than 300K when you're earning 25K. I strongly suspect this is her reasoning. It's not like she has a way out of that terrible JD anyway. I believe the current plan is to be a professional expert witness for medmal trials.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2013 15:10
|
|
|
Lote posted:Australia has a program where they will take most doctors if you practice outback medicine / do your training in the outback. It pays decent and I think they include a knife and hat. Ok, now I'm thinking I should go to med school. I mean, practicing law isn't too bad (yet?) but I didn't receive a knife or a hat. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Plenty of districts require paper chambers copies over a certain number of pages. D. Md. is 15 pages or more.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
Yeah it powerful sucks. As a junior associate, I "get" to be the one to check the local rules that conveniently are different in almost every jurisdiction!! Good thing the Federal Rules are so thorough!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
Local Resident posted:How is it possible that a judge's sentences can be so biased for so long? I would have thought that judges' decisions are reviewed and analyzed every once in a while so that an outlier like him would have shown up pretty quickly. As I understand it nobody started an investigation until the Juvenile Law Center brought a civil rights case to the State Supreme Court. They're not. Welcome to the U.S. criminal justice system. Sentencing has to be pretty far out of line to draw much attention, and even then that's on an individual basis. The reason that judge is in trouble is for the quid pro quo; he could sentence people like that forever without most people even paying attention. the milk machine fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Aug 13, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
It is to the type of people who are dead set on Big Law (or at least Big Law salaries). I can't guess how many times in law school I heard "yeah, but I just don't think I'll be able to live on less than 160k a year," and I didn't even go to a T14. Incidentally it's good such people are blatant about it because it makes it easier to avoid them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2013 13:30
|
|
|
You're missing that "flexible earnings" often means "less than an elementary school teacher" and that lots of people are coming out of school with debt north of $100k. Going solo straight out of school also seems like a good way to tee up a malpractice claim or even a disciplinary hearing if you get in over your head. It's probably a good path for some people, but I wouldn't expect most of my law school classmates to be particularly successful going solo.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 12:55
|
|
|
Matthew_O posted:I was merely asking a few questions. And as a law student, the first thing I will tell you (no matter where you practice) is that until you actually practice, you probably do not understand the financial implications of running a practice. Were you the bookkeeper as well? I doubt it. There's a significant difference between what Google-able divorce lawyers list as their rate and what a twenty-something solo practitioner could both charge AND actually collect. You're severely overestimating a young solo practitioner's ability to earn a living, particularly where some may have loan payments approaching $2k per month (yes you can re-fi or whatever, but still). the milk machine fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Sep 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
I graduated in 2012 and I know several people who have hung out a shingle. Two are doing alright, a few are living with their parents while they look for non-legal employment, one works for a consulting firm now, and one became a court reporter. Many people cannot afford to live in poverty so they can eventually make less than a teacher. You've also forgotten that law school is spectacularly bad at teaching anyone how to actually practice law, and ethics rules don't allow a whole lot of leeway in "cutting your teeth." It's not that no one can make it as a solo (nor has anyone said that I believe), but it's that most can't. For people with the right mix of skills, capital, and luck, I'm sure it's a great option.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:I'm glad to know my firm is not the only one where "the war room" is a just a vaguely office-shaped dumpster Ours are vaguely conference room-shaped dumpsters.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:I can only speak for my firm, but your resume wouldn't make it past our hiring coordinator with that as your first job out of law school Same here. I'd expect that "non-legal" work instead of practicing will be a hindrance in trying to get a job with a firm. To the extent you may want to...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
I have unironically asked myself the same question. Wonder what that says about me...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
William Munny posted:This may be the worst question in the world, but assuming that I stay here for a few years, what are the chances of moving to private practice at some point? (I'm guessing that BIGLAW is pretty close to zero, but maybe a smaller firm?) Or is it all dependent on what type of work I'm doing? BigLaw is probably out unless you luck into a huge client or become prominent enough that you'd be good for marketing. Moving into private practice should be doable, but yeah it depends on what you're doing. I would think smaller local firms may have some interest in someone familiar with the local government, but it seems like you'd also want to be able to bring some general litigation and transactional skills to the table for practices of that size.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2013 13:04
|
|
|
William Munny posted:This is what I figured. Although I would be starting in one specific area, they start all their new attorneys there, even if they're coming in with years of experience (the attorney whose practice area I would be taking over came in with 20+ yrs experience and at the highest point on the career ladder). She is focused on that area, but still gets tasked with work that relates to her previous job (elections). I am in the transactional practice, so I do get some general experience in that regard as well as more specialized work (tax mostly). That sounds it could be a pretty decent time. Honestly, if you think you'd like the job, you should probably just go for it and not worry about your chances at a Big Firm. I'm at a mid-size boutique firm, and most of my friends from law school aren't at Skadden or whatever. Most people I know seem pretty happy, and most are making "enough" money if not actually "lots." Of the dozen or so people I personally know that went to the huge firms, two have already left for other firms, and another two stopped practicing law. I graduated May '12 though, so there's still time. If you can make enough to get by and you like the job, I'd call that a win (considering the sunk cost of law school, etc etc). mastershakeman posted:My Chicago firm is hiring. Would you like to take people's homes and give them to banks with me? You'll also get to drive hundreds of miles a week in heavy traffic!! See? Also, quit worrying, you almost definitely passed the bar. 
the milk machine fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Oct 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:The worst part is as much of a shithead as he is, I really do feel like he got railroaded. I haven't kept up with this thread until recently -- is that dude a goon?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:I don't think anyone has much to say about William and Mary specifically. I think one lawgoon went there and graduated in 2012, but I have no clue what has happened to him since then. I graduated there in 2012, it's a pretty cool place. The employment situation among my peers isn't too bad, but you'll want to be top 10-15% plus a journal to sniff a Big Law job. I liked it I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
I don't know much about practicing IP, but in general it will be much harder to get a firm job later if you start at somewhere other than a firm. That doesn't necessarily mean you should take that firm job though...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
Yeah, between those two I don't see one reason to pick the part-time firm job. If you really want to work in a firm you should keep looking, but that in-house position sounds pretty good to me. Have you considered relocating? There are firms hiring, especially in IP, but it depends on your tech background I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
You'll have much better job prospects working in environmental compliance etc. if you get a masters in civil or environmental engineering. On the other hand, this may be unrealistic because it sounds like your bachelors is not in engineering. You won't make as much as the guy at Skadden or wherever that tells BP how to get away with it, but you won't have to go to law school, take a bar exam, or hate yourself!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
At my firm the attorneys handle most document review because our cases don't usually involve millions of emails (just thousands). We've experimented with predictive coding on some larger cases. The problem is early on, the only one likely to be knowledgeable enough about the subject matter is the partner or non-equity handling the matter, and they rarely have the time or computer skills. An associate new to the case would basically have to do a doc review to become familiar with the background, then do another review for the predictive coding. By that point the associate could have reviewed most of everything manually. Then again, we're a midsize boutique and I think we staff our cases much leaner than larger firms.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2013 13:23
|
|
|
Well I exaggerate a little... but yeah, our largest reviews don't approach what the large firms deal with even though they may take several hundred hours to complete.
the milk machine fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Nov 22, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2013 14:47
|
|
|
Frankly, I would want 99% of the people I went to law school with pretty far away from any kind of accounting, or really anything involving numbers.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
I'm not familiar with Iowa specifically, but I went to another well-ranked but mostly regional law school. If you actually want to be a lawyer and you're getting a good scholarship and you want to practice in that school's region, then you're good to go. Still, don't overlook the fact that this path basically commits you to being a lawyer.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
I work entirely in commercial litigation. Do transactional firms often deal with malpractice issues arising out of deals they negotiated? Because we see some righteously terrible contracts on a regular basis... Just wondering how far up the chain liability travels.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
I hear that. A large portion of the problems we seem to run into arise from business-side people fiddling with language and clauses on their own anyway. And yeah, we get the "just get it done already" plenty in litigation too, but we basically never hear "malpractice." Practicing law, man. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 19:45
|
|