Soothing Vapors posted:

During his convalescence, Discendo Vox had bookmarked and read for the first time "Law Megathread: Turn Your House Into A Law Degree." He remembered after finishing the first three hundred pages that it occurred to him that he had better stop. He started up and flung his laptop into the fireplace; the laptop struck the barred grate and fell open on the hearth in the fire-light. If DVox had not caught a glimpse of the opening words of the three hundred and first page he should never have finished it, but as he stooped to pick it up his eyes became riveted to the open page, and with a cry of terror -- or perhaps it was of joy so poignant that he suffered in every nerve -- he snatched the laptop from the hearth and crept shaking to his bedroom, where he read it and reread it, and wept and laughed and trembled with a horror which at times assails him yet. This is the thing that troubles him, for he cannot forget Throatwarbler's palace in Dubai, where black stars hang in the heavens. He cannot escape the memory of Phil Moskewitz's New Orleans slave plantation, where the shadows of men's thoughts lengthen in the afternoon, when the twin suns sink into the gulf. His mind will bear forever the memory of the wretched yet inevitable tale of Toona's Demise. Nor can he forget the passages written foretelling the ascendancy of the ancient and monstrous Senior Partner, with her black-tongued hymns about pregnancy. "Everyone's pretty much agreed," DVox whispered into the blackness of his bedchamber, knowing that no one was listening and no one would care.

In his despair, DVox prayed to God for the first time in decades -- prayed for God to curse the writers of that black thread, as the writers have cursed the world with this beautiful, stupendous creation, terrible in its simplicity, irresistible in its truth -- a world which now trembles before the Law Megathread. It is well known how the Megathread spread like an infectious disease, from city to city, from continent to continent, barred out here, confiscated there, denounced by press and pulpit, censured even by the most advanced of literary anarchists. No definite principles had been violated in those wicked pages, no doctrine promulgated, no convictions outraged. It could not be judged by any known standard, yet, although it was acknowledged that the supreme note of art had been struck in "The Law Megathread" all felt that human nature could not bear the strain nor thrive on words in which the essence of purest poison lurked.

Fuzzie Dunlop posted:

Costs

Law school is friggin' expensive. Tuition at private universities is up at $46k per year and public isn't much better coming in at $39k for non-residents. That's up about 24% since 2010.


Of course that doesn't count living expenses, which can be significant. Of the top 14 law schools, really only UMich, UVA, Duke, and Cornell are outside high cost of living areas. Have fun in Ithaca! Let's take a peak at a few top school's total cost for 3 years of attendance:

• Harvard- $287,400
  
• Stanford- $289,287
  
• NYU- $290,535
  
• UVA- $255,318
  
• UMich- $249,324
  

And the lovely schools (not top 14) are just as happy to take your money! Let's look at some highlights!

• Loyola Marrymount (Ranked 65)- $267,978
  
• Hofstra (#110)- $255,105
  
• Baylor (#50)- $245,448
  
• Chapman (Who?) (#139)- $239,952
  
• Thomas Jefferson (Unranked)- $224,100
  
• Cooley (alma mater of Michael Cohen, Esq.!) (Unranked)- $207,312
  

Also you don't "lock in" prices or anything, so expect each year to cost 3% more than the last. And don't forget opportunity cost of 3 years of lost income and the 3 additional years of work experience you just tossed out.

Law schools have generally been major revenue streams for universities. It's way cheaper to build classrooms and a library and admit a crap-ton of eager liberal arts majors than to build something actually useful like a laboratory and compete for actually skilled STEM majors. Never forget you're subsidizing all those people who in undergrad could actually do calculus.

Debt
Of course to finance all this people are going into massive amounts of debt. The AVERAGE graduate is in for more than $110,000 in debt and once including undergrad, amounts exceeding $200,000 or $300,000 with payments of over $4,000 per month are not unheard of.


Salaries

Further, lawyers have an EXTREMELY bimodal salary range - the mean sounds OK, but looking at the graph it is clear that the mean means absolutely jack.


With the recent increases in BigLaw starting salaries (at some firms) to $190,000, this is only getting worse! Let's hear from James Leipold, the NALP executive director. "“After all of the publicity surrounding
the move to $180,000, I fully expected to see the national median starting salary for law firms move upwards, but what the data reveal is that for the most part only the largest firms in the largest legal markets made that move, and while many offices are paying $180,000 to start, many are not. The result is upward movement in some law firm size bands while the national median has remained unchanged.”

And that big ole bump over on the right? Who's in there? Pretty much just people from the top schools. According to USNews, only the top 35 schools have median salaries above $100,000 and things fall quickly from there. If you're outside the top 130 schools, median salary is under $50,000!!!


Trends Since 2014

Around 2014, word finally got out that law school is generally a bad idea, see infra, and applications started to decline.


But the decline specifically came from the more qualified applicants. That's right, the smartest, most qualified people were deciding that law school is not worth it. LSAT scores have been in overall decline across the country and many schools are filling their seats with less qualified students (who are less likely to pass the bar) or are closing completely.


So if you're really considering this, you have to ask yourself, "If the most qualified people have decided not to do this, why should I?

Soothing Vapors posted:

quote:

In a Gallup poll of over 4,000 American adults who earned a postgraduate degree between 2000 and 2015, just 23 percent of law school graduates said that their education was worth the cost and only 20 percent said that their schooling prepared them well for post-grad life.

Today, the average cost of attending law school varies greatly by institution. According to the U.S. News and World Report annual survey of over 197 law programs, the average cost of attending a private law school is $43,020 and attending a public law school costs an average of $26,264 for in-state residents and $39,612 for out-of-state students. At the top 10 law schools in the country, the average cost of attendance is $60,293 per year.

Toona the Cat posted:

I got accepted to a local school here in Pittsburgh, Duquesne, which from what I understand places well regionally and has a good alumni network here in Western PA, which is where I want to stay and practice, preferably doing something in family law, veterans law, or litigation. I particularly don't care about being rich, and the scholarship they're offering me leaves me paying about $33-35K total for a JD. My house and cars are paid off, I don't owe on credit cards or other loans, and my undergrad was paid for by the GI Bill so I only have about $6K in student debt from there. I'm 33 and have a varied work history, and I sit on my county's Democratic committee so I have a pretty good network in place of people in politics, law, and the judiciary since our judges are all elected here in PA, and they all come to political events.

Am I doing this right? Is a relatively low ranked (compared nationally) school worth going to, even with a large scholarship offer?

Hot Dog Day #91 posted:

I want off Mr. Toona's wild ride.

entris posted:

General LSAT Strategy and General Questions

The LSAT has five multiple choice sections and one writing sample. Forget about the writing sample, it is largely irrelevant for your purposes. It doesn’t impact school rankings, and law school admissions people don’t particularly care about it. Of the five relevant sections: 2 are logical reasoning, 1 is reading comprehension, 1 is logic games, and 1 is experimental.

Question: Should I try to guess which section is experimental?

No. The experimental section will come in one of the first three sections of your test, before the break, but you should not try to guess which section it is. It is nigh impossible to determine which section is experimental; even people who are very familiar with the LSAT are unable to guess accurately.

Question: Should I guess on the LSAT?

Yes. When you are nearing the end of your time, make sure you set aside time to fill in the remaining questions. There is no penalty for guessing. Always pick a guess letter ahead of time, so that you can just quickly bubble in that letter when you are running out of time.

Question: Is one letter statistically better than others when guessing?

No. The people who create the LSAT spend a lot of time analyzing the questions. They would never allow one letter to occur more than the others, so don’t listen to any rumors that “B is the right answer 22% of the time!” or somesuch. Just pick a letter you like.

Question: How much time do I need to study?

This is somewhat dependent on your own personal quirks. Generally, you want to shoot for a minimum of 16 hours a week, for a couple of months, leading right up to the test. The LSAT is a standardized test, and it is very very difficult to improve significantly. Most people experience an immediate improvement, when they learn a few little logical tricks that they didn’t have before, and then they plateau for a while. If you want to see real improvement, and not just a small bump of five points or so, then you need to understand that studying for the LSAT requires consistent effort.

Take the LSAT seriously. It is a difficult test, and you should approach it like you would a difficult research project or paper – you will have to learn lots of little concepts, then bring those little concepts together into a cohesive structure. Then you have to take that structure and apply it under timed conditions. This process takes time – more than a month or two. I heard once that one of the LSAT makers stated that he believes people should study for six months if they really want to do well on the test. Most prep courses run for two to three months, and most students see improvement in that time. The key to studying is to give yourself anywhere from two to six months, and to study consistently.

It is important that you study a little bit every day, rather than a whole bunch of hours on one day. If you study every day, you train yourself to quickly drop into the LSAT “mindset.” The easier it is for you to get into the LSAT mindset, the calmer and clearer you will be. Then, on test day, you can sit down and get to work without needing much warm up time. If, on the other hand, you only study once a week, you aren’t practicing that transition. So, study consistently, even if it is just a little bit at a time. Obviously, if you can put aside three or four hours a day, that is great, but not everyone can do that.

Question: What’s the best way to spend my study time?

The first thing you need to realize is this: the LSAT requires you to think in a particular way. If you are not used to thinking in this way, you will need to practice it. The second thing you need to realize is that there are actual concepts that you need to learn for the LSAT. You must understand how basic logic works: you must understand the significance of words like “if,” “only if,” “unless,” “necessary” and “sufficient.” Therefore, in the beginning of your LSAT studying, it is far more important that you learn the underlying logic of the material, rather than trying to speed through a bunch of old practice exams.

Your study session should look something like this:

1. Pick an area of the test you want to focus on: Logical Reasoning, Logic Games, or Reading Comprehension.

2. Pick a concept in that area that you want to focus on. Let is assume you chose Logical Reasoning for #1. Now you decide, what kind of questions do I want to practice today? Do I want to practice inference questions? Parallel reasoning questions?

3. Review your study materials for that kind of question.

4. Do practice problems that only use that question type. Repeat the questions a few days later. Repeat them again if you do your other homework and find you have some free time.

This is the general process. You have to break the test down into manageable pieces, and spend time mastering each piece. If you take a complete LSAT section, you will not be learning the material in a systematic way; instead, you will be testing yourself on a random collection of concepts, and this isn’t going to help you focus and master each concept. So, use study materials that organize questions around central concepts. As mentioned above, the PowerScore books are generally the best self-study guides available.

Additionally, keep in mind that you are learning: A) how to answer questions accurately and B) how to answer questions quickly. You will only become quicker by understanding the concepts, and by understanding how to apply the concepts in an efficient manner. Your study materials should have all sorts of helpful tips on how to become more efficient.

Do not be afraid to repeat questions! You will not remember every question, and it is helpful for your brain to walk through the same steps of logic, because it makes each step easier. Repeat a logic game at least three or four times before you decide you are completely done with it. Each time you do it, you will learn something, I promise.

Question: What should my emotional experience be like, when I’m checking my answers?

I’m glad you asked! This next bit of wisdom is not mine, but comes from an expert in this field. There are only two emotions you should feel when you check your answers: complete surprise or complete apathy. When you do a problem, you should go over every answer choice and either eliminate it or select it. If you cross of an answer as a wrong choice, you should have a reason for crossing it off. Do not say “Oh, it seems wrong.” Do not say “Oh, I feel like it’s wrong.” You should say to yourself “This answer choice is wrong because it supports the argument and I’m trying to weaken the argument. This answer choice supports the argument because ______.” Similarly, you should have a reason for why you selected your final answer for the question. Do not guess when you are studying.

So, let’s say you have gone through the five choices, and you have gone over them and over them. You should now be absolutely certain that you have the right answer selected. There should not be any doubt in your mind. If you are not certain, then do not go to the answer choice. Review the question. Review the argument. Review the answer choices. Once you are certain you’ve made the right choice, only then should you check your answer.

When checking your answer, you ought to be so completely sure of your choice that checking the answer seems like a waste of time. If you get the answer correct, your emotional response ought to be something like “Of course that’s the answer, why did I bother checking?” If you get the answer wrong, you ought to be completely taken by surprise. Getting a wrong answer, while you are studying, should be a shocking, shocking experience.

You should never check your answer, get it right, and feel relief that you got it right. That just means you weren’t certain, which means you didn’t really understand the question.

Perhaps now you understand how it is possible to spend hours and hours studying. If you do it with this process, you will really immerse yourself in the material.

Additionally, you should make sure that the reasons you gave for eliminating wrong answers and selecting right answers are the same reasons that your study materials give for those answer choices. If you eliminate D because you think X, and your study material tells you that D is wrong because of Y, then you just got that part of the question wrong.

Question: Should I study “easy” questions? I should just study the questions that I don’t get right, right?

You should study every question type, both easy and hard. Your goal is to be as efficient as possible. Easy questions should take less time, hard questions should take more time. In a typical Logical Reasoning section, you will have about 1.8 minutes per question. Some hard questions are going to take longer than that. Where do you get that time? From the easy questions! It is easier for students to improve their efficiency with easy questions, which is why it is important to improve techniques for those questions. It is a lot easier to shave 20 seconds off of an easy question than it is to shave 20 seconds off of a hard question. If you can shave 20 seconds off 3 easy questions, that frees up 1 minute for a harder question later in the section.

A lot of natural high-scorers think that they can skip the easy questions in their materials, because they can get those questions right. Remember, the issue isn’t whether you can simply get the questions right. The issue is: Can you get the right answer in the shortest possible time? For example, a student who scores in the mid-160s may be able to get the first ten questions correct in 40 seconds each, but if he can shave the time down to 30 seconds each, that’s a free 100 seconds for later in the section. Well worth the study time.

Incidentally, special truncated courses that are targeted for “high scorers” are generally in violation of the above principle, and should be avoided for that reason.

Question: Should I ever take timed LSAT sections from old exams?

Yes. Although the bulk of your studying should be a slow, laborious process, there is a place for taking timed LSAT sections. You should take a full LSAT at regular intervals in your studying – something like 6 total timed exams for your total studying period. This will help you gauge where you are throughout your studying. Please note that students typically score six to eight points higher on self-administered timed LSAT practice exams. If you really want an accurate diagnostic experience, you should have someone else proctor the exam for you, and you should do it in an unfamiliar environment. Doing a full, timed LSAT at your desk at home, where you start the timer, is going to skew your results in your favor.

You should also take timed LSAT sections if you suffer from anxiety about the time pressure. If you are learning the material just fine, but the time constraints are wrecking your focus, then taking timed LSAT sections can help you adjust to the pressure. Simply being more familiar with the pressure can help. (If you suffer from really strong test anxiety, consider consulting with a professional therapist about that.)

Other than these two reasons, there isn’t really a good reason to just repeat old LSATs. You learn very little and you waste a lot of time that could have been spent studying more efficiently.

Question: Should I take a prep course? Should I hire a tutor?

Probably. Prep course and private tutors are expensive, and you can buy old LSATs and other study materials from Amazon. There are a couple of reasons for doing a course. Courses generally organize the material for you, so that you don’t have to waste time putting together your own study schedule. If you are the kind of person who needs structure in order to stay focused, a live class is the way to go.

In theory, course instructors are supposed to be attuned to the individualized needs of each student; your instructor should be able to give you good, specific feedback for your issues. You, the LSAT novice, are not going to know where your weaknesses are. You may think to yourself, “I’m bad at games, those are my weaknesses.” But an instructor will give you more specific advice: “Hey, I’ve noticed that you have trouble setting up games in a timely manner, let me give you some ways to improve that piece of the game process.” You may not always be aware of your weaknesses. You may not be able to figure out how to diagnose your little issues, and an instructor should be able to do that for you.

A course is also going to cover (hopefully) everything you need to know, and you will be forced to learn things that you otherwise may ignore. (For example, a course will cover the “easy” questions which you may not think you need to study.)

Also, most courses will conduct formal, timed old LSAT exams. This service is invaluable, because you will get a real test experience and can truly gauge how you are doing.

Hiring a good tutor is always useful, especially when combined with a formal course. 1 on 1 attention is always great, and a good tutor should be able to give you really personalized advice.

Logical Reasoning

Logical reasoning questions will comprise 50% of your exam, and so they are very important. There are many, many different types of LR questions, and you should become familiar with all of them. You should spend a lot of time working on LR questions. Most people want to spend most of their time on the games, but in my opinion the bulk of your time should be spent here.

Since there are so many different types of LR questions, you should consider a formal prep course that covers all of them. This is one of the reasons that a prep course can be helpful.

The general process for the logical reasoning questions is this:

1. Read the question stem first: Skip over the paragraph and read the question below it: “What is the conclusion of the argument above?” etc. You want to read the stem first because it will tell you what kind of question it is. Once you know the type of question that you are dealing with, then you read the paragraph. This way, your mind will already be on the lookout for the relevant information.

2. Read the paragraph. Pay particular attention to words like “all,” “every,” “none,” “if,” “unless,” “only if,” “some,” “most,” etc. These words will play important roles in the argument. As you read, keep in mind what the question is asking you to do.

3. If the paragraph presents an argument, identify the conclusion of the argument. This is absolutely key. If you do not know what the conclusion of the argument is, then you need to re-read. Do not proceed without the conclusion. (Some paragraphs will simply be statements of fact that you must draw a conclusion from, and you needn’t identify the conclusion for these questions.)

4. Evaluate the argument. Make sure you understand the relationship between the premise(s) and the conclusion. If there is a flaw, this is when you spot it.

5. Prephrase an answer. Dependent on the type of question, you should already have in your head a sample answer. If you can’t predict the answer at this point, then you haven’t understood the argument and you need to reread.

6. Finally, go to the answer choices. First look for your prephrase, or something similar to it. If you have no luck, then start crossing off answer choices.

This is the general process. There are many special processes for the various LR question types, so the technique varies. Generally, however, this is the process that you should go through with every question.

Reading Comprehension

You will have one section of RC, with four passages. One of these passages will be a comparative passage question, where you are given two short passages and asked various questions that compare the two.

Some courses will teach you about the various templates that the LSAT uses for its RC passages. These are sometimes helpful. You will see passages that discuss a specific artist or writer, and or passages that evaluate a proposed solution to a particular problem. You will see passages that discuss an academic movement. If you are familiar with the basic templates, you will sometimes find it easier to read the passages, but the real work for RC studying isn’t memorizing templates.

The real work is learning to active read. Active reading is a fancy way of saying “Think while you read.” As you read a sentence, think to yourself “What does this sentence mean? How does it fit with what I read before? Is this an important piece of the structure of the passage, or is it a detail? Is this important?” Active reading means that you really understand how the passage fits together, structurally, and you understand the overall purpose of the passage.

Most people think that underlining or highlighting equals active reading. It does not. Think of it this way: If you come across a sentence that you think is important, and you underline it, you are telling your brain: “Please, make sure that my hand and fingers accurately manipulate this pencil so that it draws a line under this set of words right here.” You are not saying to yourself “I think this is important because _____.” You are not saying to yourself “This important sentence means _______.” So, when you get to the end of the passage, you have a number of important sentences highlighted but you can’t remember what they actually say. This means you have to go back and reread your highlighted poo poo. What a terrible waste of time.

Instead, make a note to yourself in the margin. If the sentence is the author’s main point, maybe rephrase the author’s main point in your own words. Jot down your rephrase, and maybe make a note to yourself that it is the MP. So, you would have a note that says “MP: Author criticizes Impressionists.” (You must use shorthand: “MP: Auth crit Imp.”) Now you have a useful note that you can use for reference later.

You should make further notes for any important topic sentences. If an entire paragraph is about Aztec art and symbolism, and Aztec art and symbolism are not mentioned anywhere else in the passage, note down “Aztec.” Now if a question asks about Aztecs, you know where you can go to reread. The purpose of the notes is to create a series of signposts for the passage, so that you can instantly reread the relevant portion and locate any details. You should never try to memorize details, you can always reread to find them. If you have good notes, finding the important details will be quick. Incidentally, skim over sentences that are giving examples or details of broader points. Skim over long explanations of scientific processes. You will reread those parts if you need to.

By making notes in this manner, you are engaging with the passage in a way that underlining does not. You will finish the passage with a much clearer idea of the structure and general flow of the passage, which will help you answer questions. Do not be afraid to reread! If a question references a specific line number, you should reread. If a question references a small detail, you should reread. The key to saving time while rereading is actively reading the passage the first time around, and giving yourself guides for finding information in the passage.

Logic Games

You get four logic games per LSAT, which comes out to roughly 8.5 minutes a game. Some games will be easier, and you should do them quickly so that you can devote more time to the harder games. Here’s the general process:

1. Identify the game type. To do this, read both the paragraph and the rules. Is it a sequencing game? A grouping game? If you can identify the common game types without much thought, you will be able to set up the games much quicker.

2. Symbolize the rules. You should spend a lot of time decoding rules and learning how to symbolize them. You don’t want to reread the rule in English a bunch of times, so learn methods for turning them in to shorthand.

3. Make some initial deductions. Do the rules combine in a meaningful way? Can you figure out where certain variables can go? Generally, you want to front-load your effort by figuring out how the game works before you go to the questions. Often, if you find a meaningful deduction up front, there will be a question or two that uses that deduction.

4. Go to the questions.

Review the PowerScore games book, or whatever materials you have. There are lots of game types, but they are easy to familiarize yourself with. Remember, take the time to really learn the mechanics of the games. Don’t rush through them to see if you can do them in under 8.5 minutes. The two easiest ways to save time on games are to improve your set-up and improve your rule symbolization.

quote:

https://www.law.umich.edu/connection/a2z/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=25d7bafe-6cf5-40c1-b79c-ab1d396f558f&ID=19
About a month ago, one of our 3Ls, who works as a peer advisor for Michigan undergrads considering law school, asked me my opinion on a question he gets a lot: "What post-college job would be an impressive bullet point on a law school application?" As it happens, my answer was in complete accord with his advice. Don’t you love being able to sincerely agree with people? Such a pleasant thing. Anyway, here’s how he put it: "[M]y advice is usually to tell them to do whatever they want, unless what they want to do is play video games on their parents' couch. I'm doing this basically under the theory that a lot of these kids are taking a year . . . off because they're burned out, and that working 60 hours a week as a paralegal just because they think working at a farmer's market doesn't seem serious enough for a law school application isn't the best move." He went on to explain that the woman he had been talking to most recently "had a pretty impressive [and] consistent history in environmental science[,] working for various groups, and I think she just wants to move out somewhere warm and work on trails or do something in The Nature, as my Eastern European friends like to refer to it. But she's talked to a few law students who have essentially told her that she should take a paralegal or ‘legal assistant’ job instead of doing that, because her application will suffer if she's not doing Real Work. And I told her that was silly - I figure, students should feel free to take the year off and do whatever they want. Obviously if they have an opportunity to go to Sudan on a Fulbright, they probably shouldn't take a job at Blimpy Burger and live at their old fraternity instead, but that within the range of experiences you can have with only 8-9 months of free time, doing whatever you think is going to make you happy is the best thing to do.

Now, I should add two caveats. The first is, the advice changes once we’re talking about jobs that last longer than a year or two; at some point, you’re investing a largeish chunk of your life in some endeavor, and it’s reasonable for both you and an Admissions Office to expect that you’re getting something identifiable out of the experience—some return on the investment.

The second caveat is one I shared with my e-correspondent: “I do think it's good to have a sense of what you're getting into when you embark upon being a lawyer. There are many ways to get that sense, however, and a paralegal job is certainly not a sine qua non to having the requisite knowledge. But if someone is thinking, ‘I kinda think I'd like to be a lawyer, but I'm really not sure what lawyers do,’ then that person might be well-served to get some answers to that question, and paralegaling is one way to do so. But that's about the applicant's well-being, not about the applicant getting into law school.” And then I added: “I'd also say that there are certainly many paralegal jobs in this world that are fun, and that add to one's knowledge base, and that aren't 60 hours of work per week. I worked for a sole practitioner, for example, and I learned a ton and he's still the best boss I've ever had. But I took the job precisely because I wanted to decide whether I really wanted to go to law school, not because I wanted the job to get me into law school. It served the function I wanted it to serve.”

helio posted:

When you are trying to find a job (during On Campus Interviews during the fall of your 2L year, anyway) the three things, and only three things that matter are:
• Your full 1L year GPA
• Whether you are on law review, and not any other journal
• What kind of job you are trying for, i.e. Biglaw, midlaw, public service, etc.
The only grades that matter are your 1L grades. At a T14, a huge chunk of the class has a good shot at a biglaw job paying market. At a T2, only the top 5-10% do (maybe top 25% if you have an truly stellar personality). I am not saying this to try to belittle lower ranked schools; it's just the way it is. That's why rankings matter so much. There are two consequences of this. First and most obvious, you need to get a really good GPA. Second, all of your classmates know they have to get a really good GPA. So whereas at a T14 where people get drunk and don’t care because they’re getting the job they want anyway, at T2s everyone is gunning for top 10%. This means you need to work harder than you ever have before.

This brings me to your question about what you can do to get a leg up. In spite what my previous paragraph might make you think, studying before law school is THE SINGLE WORST THING YOU CAN DO TO TRY TO GET A LEG UP ON YOUR CLASSMATES. IF YOU TAKE AWAY ONE THING FROM ALL THIS, PLEASE DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND DO NOT START STUDYING. The reasons for this include:
• You won’t be studying what the prof wants you to focus on
• You won’t know how to read a case. How you figure out how to read a case is: read it, think you know what is important, go to class, have the prof explain what is important, and go home and rewrite your case notes to reflect what is actually important. After about 8-10 weeks of this, you will finally start picking up the right way to do it. It is a VERY STEEP learning curve. Be patient and do not get frustrated. Everything clicked for me three weeks before finals. It took me 12 weeks to loving get it. I am top third of my class. You will be fine.
• You will burn yourself out because by the time finals roll around you have spent 8 months or more on the material rather than 5 and you are loving sick of it. It reflects in your grades.
Let me reiterate: The people who uniformly did the WORST first semester were the ones, based on gunner status and overprerparedness, that you would THINK would have done the BEST. Do not be this person. You are smarter than them.

So, what the hell can you actually do to make sure you have the highest grades possible? I did almost none of these, but you are going up against other students who give a poo poo, so here is the recipe for actually doing well.
• Go to class. Never skip. You want to know what the professor thinks is important and this, as explained above, is the only way to figure out how to read the cases correctly
• Take hand-written notes. If you can’t stand doing that, find a way to disable your internet on your computer. I shouldn’t need to explain why.
• Buy E&E Glannon for Civ Pro and use it as a companion during the semester rather than as a study tool at the end. Get E&E for torts as well. I would suggest a good contracts hornbook but my prof was Kingsfield reborn so I knew that class back and front. You probably don’t need a crim hornbook.
• Get 2 to 3 GOOD OUTLINES from 2Ls or 3Ls for all your classes, keyed to your specific professor. Use them throughout the semester to make sure you are not missing any big points. Only use them after you have done all the reading on your own each day.
• Do all the reading before class, otherwise class will be boring and make no sense.
• Brief cases if you must, but I would give this up as quickly as possible. It is a waste of time
• Personally, I highlighted cases using the following scheme: Yellow=facts; orange=holdings and key terms; purple=important dicta; blue=black letter. This made it easier to do outlining when the time came because I could just look for orange and blue
• If the prof holds an optional midterm for christ’s sake take it. Ask for feedback and meet with the prof if he or she doesn’t give it.
• Start your outlines a week before thanksgiving break. Use your reading notes, class notes, old outlines, and hornbooks in conjunction to make your own personal outline that you are comfortable with
• Finish your outlines at least one week before your exams start; preferably two weeks
• Take one practice exam from each of your classes, untimed, and fully IRAC (issue, rule, application, conclusion) the exam. Try to spot every issue and do a full analysis. Then set up a time to meet with your professor from each class and send them a copy ahead of time to mark up. They will explain what you need to do to improve
• Take at least one timed test in each of your subjects under test conditions (i.e. closed book if that is what the class calls for). If possible, have the prof look over these as well. If not, try to find another student and grade each others’ exams.
These last steps are, in my opinion, the steps that set the top students apart from the rest. These are the students who are the most familiar and comfortable with their outlines and the subject matter in general. These are the students who know how to take law school exams, and more importantly what the professor wants in an answer. These are the students who will provide better analysis that gets the A answer because they already have the more basic stuff down cold, while other students are scrambling to finish their outlines. This is why you need to think big picture and be fresh for the last month. If you spend (waste) your time during the summer getting burned out and not actually improving your chances of getting good grades, you will not want to put in the work when it actually counts.

Also try to go out, drink and make friends. Being a depressed loner will not help your grades. Don’t skimp on sleep and don’t get sick. It’s a marathon, not a sprint and the only thing that matters is at the end, so go steady for three months, don’t wear yourself out and sprint to the finish.

linguica posted:

I did really well in 1L, so I guess the stuff I did worked. Here was the basics:
• I went to EVERY class. Well, that's not entirely true. I did skip one conlaw class in mid-spring so I could submit something before a deadline.
• I got into the habit of studying EVERY day. In late October there were wildfires in San Diego and the school shut down for a week. The first day it shut down, I realized that I had been in the campus library every single day since school had started in mid-August.
• I raised my hand a lot. There are a lot of people that will resent you for doing anything other than sitting there like a lump. Whatever. I paid $40K for my 1L and if I wanted to ask / answer questions I was going to. (Although I tried not to ask pointless poo poo or waste everyone's time, and I only raised my hand when I honestly had a question / answer, not just to hear myself talk.) And although I can't prove it, I wouldn't be surprised if I got a grade or two revised upwards by a professor who appreciated that someone was at least pretending to be interested.
• I didn't go to office hours, mostly because I never really could think of anything that I wanted to go ask them. I probably should have though. A classmate that had above a 4.0 the first semester went to practically every office hour.
• I didn't use outlines until I was studying for finals. When I finally read the outline, I felt stupid for spending so long trying to figure stuff out when all the answers were spelled out in the outline, but I am sure it forced me to actually learn it instead of reading it and going "OK I think I know it now."
• I tried my hardest to not gently caress around on my laptop. In two classes (Civ Pro and Con Law) I didn't even use my laptop and just used pen and paper.
• The biggest help in studying for finals was finding sample exams wherever I could. Certain schools (UC Hastings and Pepperdine are two I remember offhand) have a lot of old exams and sample answers publicly available on their websites. If you read a bunch of old exams and answers from other schools, you get a good idea of what sort of stuff comes up all the time, and how good answers are structured and what they make sure to spend time on.
• You might be saying, "wait a minute, this sounds like you were a big gunner" and my answer would be, yeah, I guess. But there are big gunners at every school, and if you want to beat them, you can't do it by lying around all year and then cramming for two days.

Res Ipsa Blog posted:

1. Get advice from 2Ls and 3Ls who are successful in the areas you want to be successful in.
There are a number of ways to be successful in law school. You can make the highest grades, become an acclaimed advocate, or become an editor for a law review or law journal. An important key to being successful in law school is getting advice from students who are already successful in the areas you want to be successful in. Every law student wants to make good grades, and high grades, more than anything else, are rewarded upon graduation. Find students who are at the top of their class and find what worked for them, how they managed their time, and how they prepared for their finals. Find students who have had the professors you are taking to get an idea of what to expect and what the professor expects of you. If you want to focus on honing your litigation skills, seek out a mentor who has been on a national mock trial or moot court team. If you want to become an editor on law review or a law journal, focus on improving your writing skills, pay attention to detail, and find someone who already is on a journal to learn about what it is like being on a journal and tips on effectively managing your time.

2. How you do on the final is much more important than how you answer a question in class.
The Socratic Method strikes fear in the hearts of 1Ls across the nation every year, and it is easy to be caught up in just reading for class to make sure you can answer the question when the professor calls on you. However, knowing the minutiae of every case is not what is going to get you the best grades, you need to be able to step back and see the big picture, so don’t sweat it if you get an answer wrong in class, but make sure you understand why you missed it, and focus on preparing for the final.

3. Don’t reinvent the wheel.
Every year brave young law students start their outlines from scratch. While there is utility in analyzing cases and creating your own outlines, especially when you first start studying the law, the time you have available to you in law school is limited. Make the best use of your time by using existing outlines as a starting point, which you can then tweak and make your own. Conversely, you will never want to rely solely on someone else’s outline. Make sure you agree with their conclusions and summary of the law. When in doubt, consult with your professor.

4. Get to know your professors.
Law schools pride themselves on low student to professor ratios and as a result most law school professors have the opportunity to get to know their students. However, it is up to the students to take advantage of this opportunity. Take the time to meet with professors when questions in during the semester, rather than waiting till the end of the semester to approach them. There are students who never set foot in a professor’s office do very well on their exams. Just because they haven’t been in the professor’s office doesn’t mean they haven’t spent the semester getting to know the professor. Successful students seek out prior exams or model exams that the professor has made available, and contemplates questions that could arise while they study, so that they know what to expect on test day.

5. Get to know your law librarians.
Law librarians are a great resource. They know how to use online resources like Westlaw and Lexis, as well as print resources better than probably anyone else in the law school. They are also there to help you find what you are looking for. There are numerous databases and resources that are often overlooked by even experienced researchers or lawyers that law librarians are familiar with. They can also assist you in forming good Boolean searches, give you search tips, and point you to the best starting point for your topic.

6. Find time for yourself.
Law school will likely be the most challenging endeavor you will have undertaken at this point in your life. It is important, now more than ever, to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Regular sleep patterns and exercise may seem hard to fit into your schedule, but are even more important now that it seems like you don’t have time for either.

7. Use technology wisely.
The smaller the laptop, the better. You law school books are going to take up a lot of space and the last thing you need is a 17 inch laptop to lug around every day. Back up your work religiously. Email yourself documents that you are working on at the end of each day. On the weekends, back your laptop up to external drives or at the very least to a thumb drive. Finally, use a free service like Mozy to back up your documents on a regular basis.

8. Master the law school exam.
Your entire grade for a law school class is often based on a single final exam. Master the law school exam process: http://www.leews.com/ and Getting To Maybe: How to Excel on Law School Exams.
At the very least, pick up old exams and do practice questions under timed conditions. Also, be aware that very often commercial outlines go into areas of law not covered by your professor, so to maximize your study time, seek out old exams or practice questions from the professor, the law school library, or other students. Law school exams usually consist of a long fact pattern followed by a series of questions. There are often no right or wrong answers. You are getting graded on spotting issues and them analyzing the potential outcomes. The facts usually come down somewhere in between two or more cases you looked at in your reading so you will have to compare the facts presented with fact patterns you came across in your reading and then predict how the court will come out. The prediction isn’t what you are graded on; it is the analysis of the facts and law that leads to your prediction that is graded. If you don’t correctly spot the issue, you lose the opportunity to get points for either the analysis. A very simple way to think of a law school answer is set forth by the IRAC Method: Issue, Rule of Law, Analysis, and Conclusion.

9. Consider joining a study group.
Going over the material with another person or a small group of people will help you hash out concepts, and ensure a thorough overview of the subject. Study groups sessions should be secondary to extensive individual study, so as a group you can focus on practice questions, clarifying issues, and making sure you have hit all the main concepts.

10. Don’t underestimate the value of after-class review or overestimate the value of reading for class.
After-class review is as important, if not more important than reading for class. Reviewing after class ensures that you completely understand the material. It should be the third time you are covering the material, the first being when you read before class, and the second being when you went over it in class. After-class review also allows you the opportunity to take any questions you still have on a topic to your professor for clarification. After class review sessions are also the perfect time to review and make notes to your outline.

quote:

According to the 2005 LSSSE Annual Report, transfer students were less likely to:
• Perceive their relationships with other students to be as positive as students who did not transfer.
• Work with other students outside of class to complete an assignment.
• Have serious conversations with students who are different from themselves.
• Discuss ideas from reading or assignments with others outside of class.
• Work on a paper or project that required integrating ideas.
• Participate in cocurricular activities.
P. 14-15. The report continues, "These findings underscore that many of the strongest student relationships are formed during the first year of law school before transfer students join the campus community." (p. 15).

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2008/07/letter-to-the-1.html posted:

Even after twenty-five years as a law firm recruiter, I'm still surprised when a summer associate decides to split a summer between two law firms. No matter how much law school and law firm career professionals advise against this, the conventional wisdom among 2Ls that a split summer is a good idea remains. Two jobs, the thinking goes, surely looks better than one; and isn't the split a way to improve one's chances of a job offer?

The reality is that the halves don't necessarily equal a whole, and dividing your time between two law firms might hurt your job prospects.

Diminishing Your Chances

From a law firm's perspective, there are lots of reasons why you shouldn’t consider this option. Here are a few:
• You will spend 6-8 weeks in direct competition with students who will work 10-12 weeks. The ones who work longer get more time on more assignments, longer and stronger relationships with lawyers, more opportunities to fix mistakes or improve bad work, and more time to become more integrated into the firm. You get less time for training and fewer events to learn about the firm and bond with its lawyers.

• It is extremely tough for recruiters to pace a summer program smoothly for both six and a 12-week time frames. If we have associates splitting the summer, we frontload the program to allow everyone to experience the best training and events. The second half can seem less interesting and less substantial for those of you going to a law firm in that time.
• Once the second stint starts, you are tired and less focused, because you’ve just crammed a 12 week program into six. And maybe you've had to move from one part of the country to another. I’ve seen it firsthand: splits who join in the second half have diminished stamina, and yet, they’ve had to start all over again to compete with others who have are with one firm for the entire summer. All but a tiny minority of my summer associates who split regret their decision when it is time to move on.
• Also, you never know when some personal emergency will arise. Should something happen, you'll lose time and opportunities at both jobs. This has happened to several of my summers in past years.
Hedging Your Bets

If you're already in a split this summer, how can you truly hedge your bets and improve your chances of nailing a job offer? Here are a few tips.

At the first law firm: Track your matters every day, and be prepared for conflicts check that the second law firm will require; submit the details about the work assignments to the second firm as soon as possible to allow you to begin work quickly.

At your second law firm: Connect with your second summer class during the first half. If you ask your second firm for the names / contacts of your classmates, they'll happily provide them. This is a way to build relationships before you arrive at the firm, and show interest in the activities that you're not there to take part in. Also, stay in touch with the recruiting professional at the second firm from time to time to ensure you've got everything you need

At both law firms:
• Take care of yourself, physically and mentally. We encourage our summers to remain physically active, by going to the gym or through some other activity. Focus on a healthier diet, especially during the day when you're working.
• Work hard and fast. Jump out of the box on summer assignments, taking short, substantive fact-based assignments whenever possible. It will build your "book" more quickly and demonstrate your commitment.
• Don't waste a lunch hour--find a lawyer to lunch with every single day. Build every relationship you can, as quickly as you can.
What's In Store this Fall

Law school colleagues tell me they're hearing increased interest in splitting as a reaction to the economy. This might pose some problems, since I'm also hearing that fewer employers are going to accept splits across the country (even in Texas where splits have been the market culture for years).

We see who does/doesn't go with two firms on the NALP employer forms, which are published and available on line through NALP's website. Usually, the exceptions will most frequently be for students who spent the previous summer as 1Ls at another firm and have to return to keep an offer alive.

Remember, for the reasons detailed above, and more, employers dislike the practice. And in this economy, we don't have to accept split summers and the problems that come with them.

quote:

A: No. A thousand times no. Study abroad in law school is expensive and useless. If you want to see the world, buy a drat plane ticket and go. You'll be able to do a lot more for a lot less than what study abroad programs charge. Law firms don't care about the A's you got in your study abroad courses. Everyone knows that those grades are handed out like candy because it helps recruit more idiot 1Ls who think it's the easy track to padding their lackluster GPAs.

Study abroad, especially in the summer, also means you aren't out in the market finding/working a job. When 2L OCI rolls around and you spent your summer vacaying in Thailand while your peers were clerking for a local judge or interning at a county prosecutor's office, guess who isn't getting a job?

There are two types of people who study abroad in law school:
(1) Guy with lovely grades who needs something, anything to put on his resume, no matter how inane and stupid that thing is.
(2) Guy who wants to spend his summer drunk, pretending he's still in undergrad and the "serious" stuff will start next semester.

Neither of those people is going to succeed, so don't be that guy.

quote:

Notwithstanding the "work during the summer, don't travel" advice, which is spot on, this is entirely wrong. Study abroad is what you make of it. I know lots of people who did study abroad in law school, had great times in interesting places, and have been successful outside of school. Hell, it's something I wish I had done when I had the chance. It's in no way a "black mark" on your resume; to the contrary, it helps you get jobs because hiring partners who have traveled take notice if you've been to the same places, and you can bet you'll be one of the interviewees that said partner remembers well if you have a chance to chat about your experiences in places you've both been. That said, it's best to do it at a time that doesn't interfere with interviews and whatnot, and you shouldn't pass on moot court, journal membership, or a particularly valuable clinic for it.

Mookie posted:

New York tends to have later "start times" for the office (usually 9:30 - 10:30ish) compared to the west coast, but also tends to expect later hours for face time. Generally, the offices there are the largest of the firm, even when it isn't headquartered in New York, and will think that they are the most important, even when their overall business generation, hours generation, and success rates lag other offices (at most firms, even NY-based ones, the Silicon Valley offices tend to be the most profitable, not New York). Anecdotally, making partner in a New York office is more difficult to do, but that might simply be because of the initial size, etc.

New York offices will have every sort of case/deal imaginable, but tend to be very heavy on M&A and large bankruptcies and similar financial dealings (also with a lot of investment/banking client base).

Los Angeles is an odd city to practice law in; despite being the second largest city (in population) in the United States, LA is a very middle-market sort of town. Relatively few major corporations are based there, and cases pending in the local courts tend to be for out-of-area matters relative to other cities. Strangely enough, though, the LA-based firms are much more financially sound and respected than the San Francisco/Silicon Valley ones, for the most part. Expect to see a relatively larger amount of "soft" intellectual property (trade secrets, copyrights, trademarks, etc.) and entertainment-industry related stuff (lots of contract and employment disputes, along with the soft IP). There used to be a huge amount of real estate financing work in LA (and Orange County), but most of that died with the economy.

San Francisco is the legal capital of California, and the West Coast in general. The Ninth Circuit is based there, as is the California Supreme Court. Additionally, the vast majority of major companies located in California are headquartered in or near the city as well, giving a steady client base. Likewise, the tech industry in Silicon Valley and the governmental-affiliated industry in Sacramento are readily accessible. Additionally, San Francisco is the major western financial center, with most of the region's banking and investment firms in the city. Add to that the large amount of patent-related work in the Northern District of California, and you have the recipe for a major legal market (which is significantly out of proportion to the relative population of the region).

The problem with San Francisco is that, on average, its law firms are very poorly run and relatively weak compared to other cities' law firms. This is seen in the large number of famous San Francisco law firm collapses- Heller Ehrman and Thelen this round, along with Brobeck in the last downturn. The reason for this seems to be that, more so than most other markets, San Francisco firms seem very susceptible to various legal "fads" that end up going bust and sucking the firms down with them. For example, a major portion of Brobeck's business was based around (1) riding the dot-com bubble and (2) riding the securities litigation wave that occurred in the late 1990s. When both of those dried up, the firm died and splintered into a number of pieces. Tower Snow still has no work.

More generally, San Francisco is a legal market that the sane will be avoiding right now. There are a LOT of out of work attorneys competing for jobs, and it will take a number of years for the market to soak up the excess regional capacity. Not only are there the people looking for work in the aftermath of the Heller and Thelen collapses, but the San Francisco (and Silicon Valley) offices of a large number of firms have been very hard hit by recent layoffs.

Washington, D.C.: Proximity to the federal government is the real color for the local practice here. There's a lot of practice groups that really can only exist in significant numbers in DC- tax controversy, government contracts, international trade regulation, lobbying, and similar administrative law work. The other unique feature of DC practice is the much larger revolving door into the government; unlike many other cities, where going to work for the government is considered a different career path from law firm work (sort of like in-house work), DC treats it a lot more like any other temporary lateral move.

DC offices of firms are generally not the most important firm offices; having a lot of unique practices (typically with relatively low billing rates/hours) tends to not only isolate you from the larger firm power structure but also get you seen as prime candidates for "cut the entire group loose" status. That said, because it is all local and its own thing, you're usually pretty insulated from the larger positive (and negative) currents of the firm as long as your group has decent local rainmakers.

For all you stereotypical goon nerds, there's also a somewhat overlooked patent/IP practice in the DC area, although it often tends to be subordinate to the out of town big guns. For patents, there's the Fed. Circuit, the E.D. Va. and D. Del. on your doorstep, with the NoVa tech corridor out in McLean and the like, as well as the ITC, which is rapidly becoming a preferred patent venue. The difficulty, as I mentioned, is that you're usually someone from out-of-town's in-firm local counsel. However, if the ITC continues to play its central role in patent fights, I'd expect the IP center of gravity to shift somewhat to DC over the next decade or two.

Chicago: Welcome to the primary BigLaw city between the two coasts, kids. As a result, the larger Chicago offices will tend to be pretty well-diversified, since they need to serve a pretty large geographic region, with some pretty large clients in the area.

That said, in the downturns, it is my impression that Chicago offices tend to get hit harder than other offices; perhaps this has to do with the business model of the local firms and how they do leverage (or fail to do up and out on people in the good times), or perhaps the work dries up faster as the local clients seek the security of NYC firms. I don't know, but I do know that even hardcore profit centers in Chicago like Kirkland & Ellis have fired attorneys in this cycle, and Kirkland even shitcanned some of its income partners (read: senior associates). The other big (but not as $$$$$$$$ LOOT $$$$$$$$ as Kirkland), Winston & Strawn and Sidley Austin, both have made similar cuts and pay freezes, etc. Take that for what it is worth.

Again, to emphasize the IP work, it is much less than Northern California or New York, but there's always something interesting rattling around in the N.D. Ill., and, depending on the reach/notice of your firm, you might get to go play in the Western District of Wisconsin, which is, like E.D. Tex., one of the patent-heavy jurisdictions.

Houston: You'll do a lot of energy law. Also, Texas is a weird legal market because it is pretty insular from the rest of the country, both in terms of firms and in terms of hiring. It's almost as if Texas likes to think of itself as a quasi-independent nation...

That said, you'll live like a loving KING working in Houston; the pay is pretty comparable to the coasts, and the cost of living is miniscule. If I had any connections to the state, I'd really consider working there.

Atlanta: I don't really know anyone that works in private practice here, only a couple of in-house guys at CNN and Home Depot. I do know, however, that Atlanta associates are CONSTANTLY bitching on Above the Law about compensation compression and general fuckery from local firms. Usually more so than the general compensation bitching on that site.

Sab0921 posted:

I guess I should add some actual content - so here is what I consider to be the overview of the Houston big law market - it's long, meandering and not user friendly, just like all legal writing should be. If you don't give a poo poo about big law - skip it - if you're in big law in another city, I'd read - Houston is an interesting market right now - and it pays full Cravath/Milbank scale.

Transactional

Historically, Houston transactional work was always related to the energy industry (the attendant M&A, debt finance, cap markets, insurance, etc... were all in conjunction with the energy industry) and was relatively insular and home grown - this incredible article from 1973 gives a snapshot of what Houston big law was like through the late 2000's (with certain changes as we modernized from the 70's). It was dominated by Baker Botts, V&E, Fulbright & Jaworski (now Norton Rose Fulbright), Andrews Kurth (now Hunton Andrews Kurth) and Bracewell & Patterson (now just Bracewell after a brief stint as Bracewell & Giuliani (yes, that Giuliani).

If you were from Harvard, Yale or Stanford and wanted to work in Houston, you went to Baker Botts or V&E and if you went to an elite Houston private school and were an SAE at UT you went to AK or Bracewell. Together - those firms represented the major energy firms in their transactional work. There was not a lot of movement between the firms and it was relatively frowned upon to switch from one to the other, it was indicative that something was wrong. The work was largely for major oil companies and banks that represent them (the big market upheaval was in the 1980s and 90s when banks began merging and consolidating - upending the structure described in the Texas Monthly article where the major firms had an associated bank - Bracewell got to be a major player by representing NY and European banks)

Certain other firms attempted to break into the Houston market to varying levels of success - Weil Gotshal opened an office in conjunction with the Enron bankruptcy, but it had all but closed by 2013, Baker Mackenzie and DLA had outposts here because they have outposts everywhere and certain smaller regional firms established some litigation and minor transactional footholds here (Baker Hostetler, Akin Gump etc..), but by and large - Houston firms were where you had to be. A number of these firms tried opening offices by moving folks from their major hubs to Houston, but it never worked, because the city and the energy industry in general is so insular (it's basically that salsa commercial from the 90's where we hate everything from New York City and love everything from San Antonio, because despite never having been there, George Strait said he came up from San Antone that one time so it's cool).

Latham & Watkins was the first to truly break this mold by coming in and poaching a number of partners from V&E and Baker Botts to build a Cap Markets based practice in Houston in conjunction with the MLP Boom that has been tremendously successful. Kirkland & Ellis followed, but poached partners from STB's Houston office and Baker Botts to build an M&A and bankruptcy practice that has now become the most successful firm in Houston.

Others have replicated the model, but not to the level of success of K&E and Latham. Sidley has a strong office in Houston. Orrick, Gibson Dunn, Shearman and Sterling and White & Case have recently opened up offices to varying levels of success but basically based on the same model of poaching partners from the established Houston firms. As you might imagine, this growth of national firms in Houston has come at the expense of the old line Houston firms - Andrews Kurth all but collapsed and was bought out by Hunton & Williams, Fulbright merged with Norton Rose to become NRF and is basically a non-factor, Baker Botts has lost an enormous number of partners to Latham, K&E and Gibson (I'm not sure they have an actual upstream practice anymore, the recent BHP sale notwithstanding)and Bracewell is seemingly on very shaky ground. V&E is the only Texas firm left that is on equal footing with Latham and K&E and those three are the dominant players in the transactional market.

The reason for the shift is the entry of Private Equity. It was often too risky for PE shops to enter the energy field with its arcane land rules presided over by high school educated land-men who could tell you after you just spent a billion dollars that you don't actually own anything until oil became crazy expensive in the 2010-2014 time frame. That brought the bulge bracket PE firms into the energy space for the first time and they were more comfortable using counsel they were familiar with (STB, Kirkland, Latham) than the Houston firms that had been doing this type of work (except for VE - which made a concerted effort to become the preeminent energy PE firm through the 2000s) - additionally, the price of oil collapsed in late 2014 putting actual oil companies in a precarious position where they were basically frozen in place, trying to stave off bankruptcy. PE firms had a ton of dry powder as they raised energy funds in the 2012-14 time frame and had capital to buy assets from struggling strategics.

Because of all the new entrants to the market, the lateral market (between Houston firms and for folks moving from out of state to Houston) is loving insane right now - there are six figure signing bonuses for 2nd and 3rd year associates because warm bodies are needed - so if you're in NYC or DC or SF and you're sick of that poo poo, come down to Houston, get a loving huge signing bonus, use it to buy a house you could never afford in Manhattan and do the lord's work - help private equity funds buy fracking assets.

TL;DR - V&E, Kirkland and Latham now dominate the Houston transactional market - the Texas firms are still there but struggling. Private equity is the huge market disruptor of the last 5 years.

Litigation

Who cares - litigation is boring and dumb. If you want to be a litigator in Houston, don't do it at a big firm, go to one of the elite boutiques (Susman, Yetter Coleman, Beck Redden AZA). At a big firm, you're a doc review monkey, at the the boutiques, you can like...learn to be a lawyer.

Throatwarbler posted:

Job search update: I looked up one of the firms I have an interview with and found someone who went to the same school as me and graduated in 2016, and I sent a quick email (as one does?) trying to find something in common and also asking for any interview tips. In hindsight this email was a little too terse and poorly worded, because today I got an email from Career services at the school basically telling me to stop being an creepy anti-semitic pervert and harrassing the alumni.

This is the first cold email I've ever sent.

Throatwarbler posted:

It's not in St. Louis and the recipient is Jewish.

The email was literally just 3 sentences, so it's impressive that I was able to convey so much in so few words. Basically I added a P.S. at the end that was something to the effect of "Hey, are you Jewish, because <mildly interesting anecdote that may establish a connection but more importantly would explain why I am even asking>?", but upon revision I decided it was too verbose and deleted the 2nd part, so now it just reads like "Hey, are you Jewish? ".

Throatwarbler posted:

I think I'm over it now.

Yuns posted:

Just to reiterate for emphasis:

As a biglaw partner, I did the following today:

5:00 am wake up
6:00 am train into the city (work on train)
7:00 am - 8:30 am jiu jitsu training
9:20 am arrive at office
9:30 am - 4:00 pm booked solid with meetings including lunch meeting
4:00 pm - 6:30 pm legal work
6:30 pm - 8:30 pm attend business event
9:00 pm -10:00 pm train home (doze on train)
10:00 pm - 10:30 pm dinner
10:30 pm - 11:45 pm lift weights at the gym
12:00 am - 12:45 am deal with personal family stuff
12:45 am - 2:00 am legal work and prep for client meetings tomorrow

I will sleep from 2:00 am-5:00 am.

(Note that people who work out less than me would have 3 extra hours to do other stuff like sleep or bill more.)

Yes, the renumeration is healthy but you have to work for it. Unfortunately, our success in our occupation as biglaw attorneys is driven directly by the hours we can bill to clients. To make more you need to work more. Also, your reward for being successful is even more work. Yes there is leverage but that is limited.

My spouse and kids can go on nice vacations around the world and stay at some really amazing places because of my compensation. Guess what? 80% of the time I can't even go with them on vacation since I have client commitments which keep me from traveling. But to be honest, I don't mind the long hours. I grew up poor and I'll do whatever it takes to support my family.

Hope that sounds appealing to you GET MONEY.

edit:
In retrospect, I probably should have gone into finance on the buy side or been a quant trader. I'd work just as hard but make 10 times as much money.

Tipps posted:

Working for government, a typical summer day:

5:30am: wake up

6:10am: walk to gym

6:30am: lift, shower, dress

8:20am: walk to work

8:30am: first to arrive at the office

[do literally nothing because it's summer and everyone is on vacation. Have long talks with boss and coworkers about cake recipes.]

12:00pm: mandatory lunch hour

1:00pm: check emails. Nope, still nothing to do.

4:00pm: attend a client meeting

5:00pm: clients cut the meeting short to go home

5:10pm: go to gym again

5:20pm: cardio while waiting for husband to finish lifting

6:20pm: drive home

6:30pm: shower, eat dinner, yadda yadda yadda

9:00pm: sleep

I love my job.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

The "day in the life" things really depend on what kind of day it is. I'm my own boss and the boss of others so I can basically do whatever I want.

Last week preparing for trial, I recorded 80 hours. Typical day went like this:

6:00 wake up, feed kids, help wife and kids get out of the door, SSS

8:30 get to work (I drive, it takes about 15 minutes all on surface streets)

8:30 - 10:30 various emails, phone calls, etc about things in 8-10 cases

10:30 - noon in-person meeting with witness to prepare for trial

2 hour lunch meeting with expert to prepare for trial

2:00-4:00 review depositions and prepare examination outlines for other witnesses

4:00-5:00 finish working on pretrial report in another case going in August and phone conference with client about it

5:00-6:30 more trial prep (reading depositions, outlining examination, preparing voir dire, reviewing bench books, etc)

Go home, make dinner, kids to bed around 7:30-8:30

Once kids are in bed, another 2-3 hours preparing for trial


This week has been less hectic.

Today for example will be:

7:30 wake up (only one child at home currently and she sleeps later), do the morning stuff
9:30 get to work
9:30-11:30 working on discovery responses (writing pleadings, researching privileges, phone calls and emails with client, reviewing the documents they've given me to respond with) and meeting with partner to discuss division of labor in upcoming depositions we are handling together next week
11:30-noon various little emails and phone calls. Also gently caress around on the internet, work a little bit on the novel that will help me get out of this goddamn business
3 hour lunch
Do not return to office

CaptainScraps posted:

Here's a day in the life of a solo family law practitioner:

7:30: Wake up. See whatever hosed up in the night. Do e-mails, hop in the shower, dress for work.

8:30: Court. Likely a prove-up.

9:00: Usually some sort of hearing. I'm in court 3 to 5 days a week.

11:30: Get back to office. Pick up phone messages, start making calls.

12:00: Usually a consultation.

1:00: Lunch.

2:00-5:30: More consultations, phone calls, drafting, emails. Hearing prep.

5:30: Gym.

7:00: Fix the poo poo that broke when I was in the gym.

7:30: Cook and eat with the wife and dog.

8:30: Games and emails.

10:30: Reading

11:30: Pass out.

4:00: Wake up with anxiety, toss and turn for an hour.


I'm here 6 days a week. Sunday it's from 12-7ish.

nm posted:

Non-gym day
6 am: wake up
7 am: bike to work
7:30-10am: emails
10-10:20am: coffee and poo poo posting break
10:20-11:45: being a lawyer
11:45-12:45: lunch at desk (gotta get to the microwave before the noon rush)
12:45-4: being a lawyer
4-4:30: bike home
4:30-6ish: 25mi ride
6ish to-10: loving off
10-11/12: poo poo posting while wondering why I haven't go to bed
11/12: bed

Gym day is basically the same except I bike to the gym at 6:30, dpn't get to work until 830 and leave at 5pm and only do like a 15mi ride.
If I'm in the field, which is. lot, this schedule changes.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

I LOVE MY JOB ESPECIALLY ASKING 80 YEAR OLD DUDES ABOUT THEY DICK IN FRONT OF THEY WIFE

stingray1381 posted:

There are lots of reasons why working for the federal government is a nice idea. You'll get regular pay increases, a predictable work week, good benefits, job security, and, depending on the agency, the work can be very interesting.

So, how much will they pay me?

Let’s get the most important question out of the way first. I am going to generalize here, but the following is pretty accurate for most federal attorney jobs. You'll most likely have a General Schedule pay grade anywhere from GS-11 to GS-15. Most newly minted attorneys start at GS-11. Within each pay grade are 10 steps with each step being a little higher pay. If you're fresh out of law school, you'll most likely start at GS-11, step 1, which is around $50k-60k depending on where you live. From there you'll move up.

Before you are hired, you'll be told your career ladder, which is essentially what grade level the job maxes out non-competitively (meaning without competing with other applicants). You'll learn that most good journeyman federal attorney jobs max out at 14, but lots of jobs in the DC area (like the Department of Justice “DOJ”) track up to GS-15. That means you'll have a non-competitive career track to GS-14 or 15. There are some jobs with less responsibility that only go up to 13 or even 12. Check out http://www.opm.gov and poke around for more info on the General Schedule.

Where you live matters as well. Someone in Chicago will be making more than someone in Topeka. For reference, here is the General Schedule for different localities: http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/indexGS.asp.

One more thing, much of DOD uses the National Security Personnel System, but after the recent Defense Authorization Act, it is going away. Most likely DOD will be back using the General Schedule shortly.

Give me an example of how the General Schedule pay system works.

Johnny, the happy 3L, graduates from UVA in the top 25% of his class and gets a job with the Department of Justice in D.C. as a staff attorney. His career ladder maxes out at GS-15. He comes in at GS-11, step 1 making $58,206. After one year he is evaluated, and he's doing great. He moves up to GS-12, step 1, where he's making $69,764. The next year he's at GS-13, step 1 and the year after he's put at GS-14, step 1. In D.C, that's a bit over $100k, which isn't bad for some guy three or four years out of law school. After he reaches GS-15, step 1, he’s at about $125K in DC, not including regular cost of living increases that federal employees get. So, he's reached his max grade level, what's next? Then the step increases will come into play. You can see how the step increases work right here: http://www.opm.gov/oca/pay/HTML/wgifact.asp.

What are the benefits like?

They are pretty good. The health care is solid, but you do pay a portion of the premium with a co-pay. Blue Cross is the largest federal government employee health insurer, so it will be similar to what you get in other good private sector jobs.

You'll also have access to a Thrift Savings Plan account, which is a fantastic 401(k)-type plan for federal employees with really low fee investment funds. You now immediately get a 5% match to your contributions upon entering federal employment. There is also a pension-like plan that I won't get into. Both of these retirement benefits together are part of the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). You can Google for more FERS information if that's important to you.

Vacation time is nice as well. When you start you'll be getting four hours for every two week pay period. After three years this jumps to six hours and after 15 years it goes to eight hours. Sick time accrues at a rate of four hours per two week pay period as well. You'll also likely get flexible scheduling and some federal jobs even have work-at-home. Certain federal jobs also have overtime, which can mean substantially more money.

What exactly will I be doing each week and for how long will I do it?

It varies greatly. Many federal agencies have staff attorneys and also attorneys working for the general counsel of the agency. The staff attorneys will write, perform research, draft contracts, agency decisions, etc., while other attorneys handle administrative litigation. (Note: The Department of Justice is generally the only agency that can represent the federal government in federal court. So, if you're doing litigation for an agency, it usually is in administrative tribunals or as an assistant to the DOJ lawyer). Really though there are lots of different jobs in the federal government, and what you will be doing will vary by agency and job title. Read the descriptions on USA Jobs. They aren't normally very well-written, but they will give you some idea of what you'll be doing at each job.

As far as the hours you will work, it also varies. I've worked for a couple of agencies, and I never really went nuts with hours unless there was some particularly large project or trial. If you're at DOJ and you have a trial coming up, I guarantee you aren't leaving at 4:30 every night.

There's a catch, right?

The biggest problem with working for the federal government is that you can pretty easily acquire a narrow set of job skills that are only useful for other federal jobs. So, unless you want to stay with the federal government for the rest of your life, you'll always want to keep an eye out for other opportunities. Again, there are many exceptions, and lots of jobs do give you skills that are applicable to other private or public sector positions.

Also, your life will be much easier if you are already in D.C., or you really want to move to D.C. Although other cities have federal jobs, there are a lot less of them and they are vacant must less often. For example, in Chicago over a 12 month period, there were approximately 12 federal jobs that were available. So, while getting a federal job in D.C. is very hard, other cities are even worse. You're also better off in D.C. as a career employee because you'll have other job options within the federal government if you want to transfer agencies. These opportunities won't exist in other cities.

How competitive is it?

It's competitive. Lots of smart people that don't want to grind it out as an associate head to the Feds. Most jobs (though there are many exceptions, particularly at DOJ and DOD) aren't as competitive as big law firm jobs, but you'll most likely be competing with a lot of high quality applicants. This has been exacerbated by the downturn in the economy.

How do I get a job with the federal government?

Go to http://www.usajobs.gov and apply away if you're 3L or a graduate. USA Jobs is the federal government’s employment site run by the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM"), the federal government’s HR agency. There are literally hundreds of attorney jobs available at all times.

After looking at some of the application requirements you'll pretty quickly catch on to one of the major criticisms of the federal government hiring process: the KSAs. KSA stands for Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities statement. It's normally three or four specific questions that force you to explain why the agency should hire you. They are tedious and annoying, but you can't blow them off if you expect to be hired. Not all jobs require KSAs, but a lot of them do.

I would also suggest taking a look at the individual agencies web pages. Some agencies, such as the Department of Justice, don't go through OPM, so you won't see their postings on USA Jobs.

As a law student, your best bet is a summer internship and/or trying to get into the respective agency's honors program if they have one and you have the grades. As you can tell by the name, Honors programs are competitive. Ask about agencies' honors program through the agency or through your career services office at your law school.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

I just treat this like the job it is. Being a lawyer funds the life I live outside of the office. It's impossible to totally escape it, but I try my best not to think about this stuff unless I am working on it.

I wake up in the middle of the night and think about the big cases. It's much worse leading up to a trial or oral argument. That's just how your brain works---being a lawyer means thinking about your cases inside and out, writing about them, talking about them, again and again. You can't just shut that off when the whistle blows. There's no way for your brain to block it out completely, especially not if you care about doing a good job. Hopefully you can find a way to make sure your clients compensate you for some or all of this time, since it certainly inures to their benefit.

But you can do your best to avoid this involuntary mental labor, and focus on other things in your life. Hopefully you have other things in your life that make this easy.

I know plenty of lawyers that have those things, but ignore them. They certainly project that this is something they want to do, or even enjoy. This goes for litigators as well as transactional lawyers. I used to work with one guy who would blow his wife off basically every night so he could work late. I would hear him getting yelled at on the regular but he didn't give a poo poo. He would go out of his way to make phone calls and send emails every waking hour of his life, no matter where he was. He makes a shitload of money and has a huge book of business. He's also an rear end in a top hat with no social skills whatsoever and nobody (including his wife and clients) seem to like him. But he has wholly embraced this life and it defines him. I have friends who use him as their lawyer and they all say the same thing: "L is a weirdo but he always answers my calls." I'm sure his wife soothes her annoyance by checking the bank account in their mansion.

Some litigators cannot have a conversation for five minutes without it reverting back to work, whether it be current cases they are handling or stupid war story anecdotes that nobody in the conversation cares about (and many have already heard half a dozen times anyway). These people are "trial lawyers" first and "people" second. They define themselves by how many jury trials they have tried to verdict and measure themselves against every other lawyer by this standard alone ("if you settle halfway through the trial it doesn't count"). Many times they are actually social, funny, engaging people---you sort of have to be in order to be a successful trial lawyer---but you get the sense their brains are permanently in the "lawyer" mode.

One such guy, a senior insurance defense lawyer, was chatting with me over drinks and we got on the subject of writing as a hobby. He mentioned that he had written a novel, and this was new information about him to me so I asked him about it because I like to write too. It was a novel about a young civil lawyer who has a fee dispute with one of his insurance company clients that drags him into a conspiracy with plaintiff lawyers inflating medical bills. Fascinating. I wish I was making that up.

This job is stressful enough as it is (doubly so if you are also on the side of developing clients and running the firm). You don't need to let little stuff get your blood pressure up. Also the legal system is loving stupid and unjust in basically random ways so the sooner you realize you can't really control that and all you can do is your best, the better it is for your mental health. I can't tell you how many awful decisions I've seen (both for and against me, but mostly against because I am a defense lawyer) so by now it usually doesn't surprise or bother me any more. Explaining this injustice to clients that have no experience with the legal system is the worst part.

quote:

One of the most comprehensive studies of lawyers and substance abuse was released just seven months after Peter died. That 2016 report, from the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation and the American Bar Association, analyzed the responses of 12,825 licensed, practicing attorneys across 19 states.

Over all, the results showed that about 21 percent of lawyers qualify as problem drinkers, while 28 percent struggle with mild or more serious depression and 19 percent struggle with anxiety. Only 3,419 lawyers answered questions about drug use, and that itself is telling, said Patrick Krill, the study’s lead author and also a lawyer. “It’s left to speculation what motivated 75 percent of attorneys to skip over the section on drug use as if it wasn’t there.”

In Mr. Krill’s opinion, they were afraid to answer.

Of the lawyers that did answer those questions, 5.6 percent used cocaine, crack and stimulants; 5.6 percent used opioids; 10.2 percent used marijuana and hash; and nearly 16 percent used sedatives. Eighty-five percent of all the lawyers surveyed had used alcohol in the previous year. (For comparison sake, about 65 percent of the general population drinks alcohol.)

Nearly 21 percent of the lawyers that said they had used drugs in the previous year reported “intermediate” concern about their drug use. Three percent had “severe” concerns.

The Warszawa posted:

Things that are nice: when a partner suddenly starts spelling your name exactly right and then offers to help you out with a personal goal of yours.

Because it's 5 am and you're both working.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

The Senior Partner put his pencil down and looked up, and the Warszawa smiled.

"The S comes before the Z," said the Senior Partner, a playful glint in his eyes. He laughed, holding up the pad of yellow lined paper they'd been working on since midnight. Line after line, page after page, the young catamite's name scrawled again and again in graphite but every time spelled wrong...until now.

"I hear from the junior partners that you have personal goals," said the Senior Partner as he rolled his leather executive chair around the desk. The Partner's legs fit perfectly around the Warszawa's, two knobby sharkskin knees against the young man's Tom Ford-clad thighs. "Tell me about them."

The Warszawa licked his lips. This was as good a time as any, the sky outside the Senior Patner's windows a deep purple as the sun threatened to rise. The Warszawa slowly slipped to his knees and thought how far he'd come, how few others could say they'd seen their name spelled correctly on the Partner's pad.

"I do have a goal," he said, looking up into the Partner's face. "And that goal is yourggllmfffgglllllffff..."

Zwabu posted:

Hey I have a lurker's general questions about how joining a private law firm works.

If you hire on as an associate, is there a defined partner track of x number of years? With a salary that increases as you approach possible partnership?

I'm assuming there are minimum requirements that must be met (# billable hours or whatever) but then a lot of subjective stuff that goes into your evaluations, whether you pissed off any important clients and how badly, do the partners like you, do you "fit in" with the corporate culture of the firm etc., overall perception of the value/quality as opposed to sheer quantity of your work

If the firm identifies you as "definitely not partner material" early on are most pretty good about letting you know this early so as not to waste your time and theirs or do some like to suck extra cheap labor out of you as long as they can?

If you are not voted in as a partner are there any second chances or are you pretty much done right then and there and need to move on? Can there be different lengths of time where "Joe Whiz Kid" made partner in only two years whereas the typical slog is five or whatever?

If you become a partner, do you have to purchase shares in the firm, are they awarded to you, or are there all kinds of different arrangements depending on the firm? I'm assuming most partner contracts would spell out that it's still possible to be kicked out by a vote of the other partners if you gently caress up badly enough? Is revenue thereafter typically just based on what you bill or do some firms just split the revenue and expenses equally regardless? (I would imagine there is a big difference in hours billed between partners so it's hard for me to imagine a law firm just splitting the pot.)

Do big firms hire any worker bee lawyers on a strictly salary, non partner track basis or is that considered a no-no in that prestigious firms want the perception that all the work they do is from partners or highly motivated associates who are heavily invested in the firm and its reputation?

I realize I could just google a lot of this and I hope I didn't annoy everyone by asking, but I was hoping answers to some of the questions would be accompanied by amusing stories!

evilweasel posted:

In order: Yes, there's generally a set associate salary scale. Some places it can vary if you missed your hours badly or some other reason but there's a baseline basically all firms follow (which may or may not be in the process of getting bumped up). Your evaluations are basically did you bill a lot, do people think you're competent enough to trust with work, and are you a giant pain in the rear end to deal with. If you are stunningly incompetent you may still have good hours because we stuck you on drugery that doesn't require a brain but nobody wants people around who can't be trusted to pitch in. If you're antisocial, whatever; the question is if we have to work late with you are you terrible to deal with or are you fine. If you're "not partner material" you'll get pushed out earlier if you're just a bad lawyer; if they think that you're a good lawyer but will be crap at business development they'll probably keep you around until the partner vote. In many firms you can get put up twice, once you fail twice you should move on. Exactly how long it takes can vary - some firms have a strict schedule, others are more loosey-goosey and you may get put up once you're a 7/8th year or you may not. People don't really get made partner wildly ahead of schedule.

If you become a partner you may not be an "equity partner" - you may be an income partner first (basically still just an employee, but with a better title). I believe most firms require you to purchase your shares if you become an equity partner. How firms split varies by firm but it's usually based on the business you bring in much more than the hours you work. Old-timey firms just pretty much split the pot, now it's mostly you get a percentage of the business you bring in.

Firms can have "staff attorneys" who are like associates but not on partner track and are paid worse. They can also have "of counsel" who are sort of permanent senior associates - they're paid as well or better as senior associates and are former associates who didn't make partner and may make partner later or may not, but are no longer on a strict "up or out" thing. That heavily varies from firm to firm.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

Zwabu posted:

Hey I have a lurker's general questions about how joining a private law firm works.

If you hire on as an associate, is there a defined partner track of x number of years? With a salary that increases as you approach possible partnership?

The answer to all of your questions truly is “is depends.” All firms are different but many are similar.

You have to understand that the essential lifeblood of a law firm is clients. Revenues in the form of repeat business, people and companies who need lawyers regularly and, ideally, in high volume (whether that means lots of individual matters, or fewer very big and complex matters).

Law firms need a continuous flow of client business to stay alive. And clients either have a relationship with a lawyer, or a relationship with a firm. The bigger the client/firm, the more likely the client is institutional, meaning they don’t care who does their work as long as it’s someone at the firm.

This principle underlies the answers to all of your questions.

Answering this question, most firms start lawyers out as associates, and increase their salaries year over year. Some firms have written guidelines for partnership, most don’t. Usually at larger firms it goes something like seven years experience, then promotion to non-equity or “income” partner—essentially a senior associate with a title to help develop business, but with no ownership interest. Still on salary, still an employee, will not share in percentage of firm profits.

2-3 years as income partner, under review, and then the lawyer is eligible for admission as a full equity partner, usually based on a vote of the partnership. Assuming the lawyer meets whatever expectations the firm has in terms of business development and revenues (usually at a minimum an equity partner must bring in enough consistent business to pay for his own salary and overhead, ideally with some profit on top), then the lawyer becomes an equity partner, sharing in the profits and losses of the firm.

Zwabu posted:

I'm assuming there are minimum requirements that must be met (# billable hours or whatever) but then a lot of subjective stuff that goes into your evaluations, whether you pissed off any important clients and how badly, do the partners like you, do you "fit in" with the corporate culture of the firm etc., overall perception of the value/quality as opposed to sheer quantity of your work

Most firms have minimums, some harder than others. Usually in the 1950-2100 hours per year range. This and all those other shifting goalposts go into your evaluations.

Piss off a client and you will hear about it. Might even be your death knell, though usually you just get yelled at/yanked from that client, then experience a sudden drop in assignments as word gets around.

Zwabu posted:

If the firm identifies you as "definitely not partner material" early on are most pretty good about letting you know this early so as not to waste your time and theirs or do some like to suck extra cheap labor out of you as long as they can?

No way. They will get every last dime of productivity out of you until you quit or they tell you after 7-8 years “it just ain’t happening, friend.” Many firms are perfectly happy churning through associates—that’s actually their business model. No intention of ever admitting new partners, leveraging associate labor to maximize profits.

Zwabu posted:

If you are not voted in as a partner are there any second chances or are you pretty much done right then and there and need to move on? Can there be different lengths of time where "Joe Whiz Kid" made partner in only two years whereas the typical slog is five or whatever?

Usually you get a few years for consideration. Some firms will let you hang around if you are profitable and there’s no reason to get rid of you.

Some people make partner quicker than others, but it doesn’t always mean lawyer is bad or good or whatever. Sometimes you want to wait for an old fart to retire, so there is more equity to go around. Might be better to wait a year and take over 2% equity than cut the pie a little thinner.

Zwabu posted:

If you become a partner, do you have to purchase shares in the firm, are they awarded to you, or are there all kinds of different arrangements depending on the firm?

Depends, but usually there is an equity buy in that typically is financed by the firm. E.g. $50,000 that you pay in installments over a couple years.

Zwabu posted:

I'm assuming most partner contracts would spell out that it's still possible to be kicked out by a vote of the other partners if you gently caress up badly enough?

Of course.

Zwabu posted:

Is revenue thereafter typically just based on what you bill or do some firms just split the revenue and expenses equally regardless? (I would imagine there is a big difference in hours billed between partners so it's hard for me to imagine a law firm just splitting the pot.)

Many different ways to do this. Lots of firms have point systems, governed by the partnership agreement. So for example, maybe each year every partner is evaluated on their (a) personal billable collections, (b) collections on matters they originated but did not personally work, meaning other lawyers and paralegals generated leveraged revenues on that lawyer’s business, and (c) intangibles—stuff like giving CLEs, serving on firm management committees, etc. The lawyer’s most recent three years are averaged and then a pro-rata share of profits is assigned to that partner for the upcoming year. Periodically, monthly or whatever, once all overhead is paid the partners take an advance draw on expected profits, as a percentage based on the point schedule. Then at the end of the year they distribute any remaining profits in accordance with their percentage ownership interest.

Or, maybe there are three partners with 90% of the firms business, and they decide amongst themselves over martinis what everyone will get paid. Don’t like it? Bye.

Zwabu posted:

Do big firms hire any worker bee lawyers on a strictly salary, non partner track basis or is that considered a no-no in that prestigious firms want the perception that all the work they do is from partners or highly motivated associates who are heavily invested in the firm and its reputation?

Yes, but obviously the initial goal is for everyone to blossom into a rainmaker so everyone makes more money. Realistically, there is only so much business to go around, so it’s usually “up or out.”

Some firms have non-partner track “staff lawyer” positions. I shudder to think what that must be like.

At some point, 45 year old associates or staff lawyers are just viewed as either untrustworthy, or are made “special counsel” or something so they don’t look too much like scrubs to clients and other lawyers.

Yuns posted:

Finally some questions that I can answer. I'm a partner in a large law firm in a major city.
At most firms there is a defined partner track with a general range of years before you can come up for consideration. There used to be more precisely defined timelines but it's far more of a subjective range these days rather than a deadline of 7 years. This range used to be from 7-10 years but the range has been getting longer in the past few years.
Most firms have lockstep compensation for associates. You get paid your base compensation by your class year and go up with your class every year. You also get a small bonus. The bonus goes up too. At most firms the bonuses used to be lockstep too and the same across the class year. Nowadays a lot of firms require you to hit certain billable requirements to get the bonus and may tier the bonuses (such as have 2 or 3 different bonus levels for each class year depending on your hours billed.

A ton of stuff goes into your evaluations. Meeting minimum billables is just the don't get fired immediately threshold. For promotion and eventual partnership consideration, there will consider number of billable hours, ability to keep clients happy, quality and efficiency of work, ability to learn quickly, ability to work as a team, good judgment, ability to fit into firm culture, your ability to command respect from clients and partners, having a real mentor who will stand up for you, ability to generate business, whether you are in a group that needs more partners or has too many etc.

The firm will communicate none of this to you as a junior associate. Your reviews will consist of: "You're doing a good job. Here are your bonus numbers. See you." Reviews will generally only get real serious when you start getting closer to consideration.

Generally yes. You'll be given a number of years to prove yourself. It used to be up or out but now there are many different models. But in general, it does no one any good to keep associate who are not going to make it. The labor isn't cheap at all and there is little value to me to suck work out of someone when we can seek someone better for the position. You may be put into 1 of 3 tracks with a lot of sub-tracks. 1. probably not going to make partner and probably won't work out long term, 2. probably not going to make partner but would be good as a staff attorney or specialist, 3. still on track and might make it. If you are in category 1 you will be given some time to turn things around but at some point you will be told that it is time to start looking for employment elsewhere and usually you'll be given time to look for work and transition out.

Depends a lot. Number one, to even be put up for vote you need the support of your practice group who will then advocate for you among the general partnership. Typically they wouldn't put you up unless they believed you had a reasonable chance of making it. Generally people who obviously can't survive a vote are counseled out before a vote ever happens Sometimes you do get an associate who doesn't get it and ignores the counseling and somehow manages to come up to a vote but this is and should be rare.

Your partners should communicate the results of the vote to you and typically they will provide guidance. You might be great but some partners might feel you need a year or two more to prove yourself or get more experience. You might have been up for partner in litigation but litigation made too many partners last year and so they need to support corporate promotions this year so you might be able to make it next year. In these cases, you may make it in subsequent years and you will be encouraged to stay. The partners may have decided you have fatal flaw that prevents you from being a partner but would still like you to stay in a permanent staff role. You might be not great at handling clients, you may be an awesome writer but can't command a courtroom, your practice area might be too specialized and not produce enough revenue, etc. You will be asked to consider a staff position. This can be called counsel, senior counsel, of counsel etc. Your pay scale will be better than an associate and you won't have up or out pressure but you'll be a salaried employee. Lastly, you might have to future at the firm. You'll be told you didn't make it and be given time to leave. Typically, if they otherwise like the associate, they'll try to help them find an in-house position at a client so that they have a soft landing, don't end up at a competitor and can refer work back to their firm.

Different people can take different times but no one makes it early. Also, there is usually a limit to the number of times you can come up for consideration. Most firms wouldn't put you up for vote again if you've been voted down 2 or 3 times.

Please note that most firms have 2 tiers of partners with some true equity partners and some nonequity salaried partners. Most of the firms with 2 tiers use the nonequity tier as a stepping stone to equity. There are a ton of different structures but I'll talk about the most typical. Yes, most firms have a "capital contribution" for equity partners. You are buying into the firm. Some firms have a big capital contribution and the new partner takes on a loan for the contribution and pays off the loan. Others require increasing buy in of capital as you get more senior then at some point you start getting bought out as you get closer to retirement. This buy in can be deducted from your compensation. The shares at some firms represent a percentage of the profits and you do get "awarded" them for performance but still have to pay for them. Some old school firms have lock step compensation where all partners of a particular year get paid the same and get raises every year but this model is almost completely gone now. Some firms base partner compensaton almost entirely on origination of work and billing but more firms have a combination of factors that go into it. I wish I could share a lot more but I don't want to violate any confidences and partner compensation structures are highly confidential at most places.
Yes. Partners have been kicked for all kinds of things.
as noted above. Depends.
Many do but these staff hires are not generally in the same position or title as the regular associates.

I'll try to think up some amusing stories that won't get anyone in trouble or leak any confidences.

Yuns posted:

A few more. As a partner, I won't get a salary on a W-2. I get a K-1 partnership form. Unlike a W-2, no taxes of ANY kind are withheld. So I have to pay estimated tax myself for everything including social security, federal and state. I have to pay tax in every jurisdiction in which my firm has an office. So you may end up filing returns in multiple states and some foreign countries. Your compensation isn't considered a salary. Most firms consider it a draw. You are drawing from the profits of the partnership. Some firms give a regular draw on a periodic basis. Because profits are unknown until the books close, many times the regular draw (could be monthly) is modest and you get a large draw at the end of the year to distribute profits. Some firms have larger regular draws but this is in essence essentially a loan against which your year end draw is applied once you know your share of the profits. Other firms have far more infrequent draws and may even only pay quarterly etc. I get my capital contribution and retirement plans and benefits deducted from my draw.

I pay full price for benefits. Associate? You get health insurance subsidized by the firm like any employee. Partner? Enjoy paying the full unsubsidized price.

Profits per partner in AmLaw are kinda bullshit. Some firms openly share results with AmLaw but some do not and so AmLaw is guessing in some cases. Also PPP isn't pretax take home. it doesn't account for capital contributions, benefit costs etc.

Lastly, as an associate you'll never know the structure of the partnership or see the partnership agreement or know partner compensation or the debt load of the firm until the day you make partner and HR shoves the partnership documentation in front of you to sign. You'll feel like you have to sign because at this point you've devoted 8 years or more of your life to get to this point, there is a big bump in compensation coming when you sign the documents and you can negotiate nothing. So instead of walking, almost everyone just signs.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

Here is a small firm, Plimsoll, McClean & Maersk, that has been around for over a hundred years, in a niche practice area. Names on the door have been dead for fifty years. Five partners and two experienced associates. Three of the partners, Randolph, Mortimer, and Smails, have the lion's share of the business, maybe 90% of it split evenly between each of them. The remaining two partners have the rest, but most everyone works on Randolph's or Mortimer's cases.

Randolph and Mortimer are having lunch one day and decide they have had enough of footing the bill for the firm's overhead. The associates are approaching a decade with the firm and are demanding more and more every year. One of them even asked about partnership. With no clients of his own, can you imagine? Smails is getting old, and he isn't very leveraged anymore---he supports himself and his secretary, and pitches in to keep the lights on. But his clients are merging or going out of business and leaving the firm one by one. Mortimer says a large local firm has been sniffing around, feeling him out about leaving. Randolph thinks that sounds capital.

One morning they both announce they are leaving the firm. It's been a great run, but its time to move on. We will be bringing our secretaries, but nobody else unfortunately. Don't worry, this firm has been around a hundred years, we're sure it will be around another hundred. Okay, we're going to lunch.

60% of the firm's business walks out of the door with them. Smails is struggling to pay himself, and certainly can't pay the salary and benefits for two associates, three secretaries, an office manager and a paralegal. The associates have nothing to work on, because they have no clients and all their time was spent servicing Mortimer and Randoph. The other two partners are bringing in about $150k in business a year each, so they immediately look for somewhere to land.

Six months later, Plimsoll, McClean & Maersk has dissolved. Mortimer and Randolph are doing great---when they left, a couple of the younger partners' clients freaked out and came with them. How fortunate! The new firm has lots of young, hard working associates that put to shame the two kids from PM&M.

Smails is of counsel with a small local firm. His client base has evaporated but he's made enough money that he doesn't care. He goes into the office for a few hours every day to get away from his wife. If he retires, he's certain he will drop dead, so he dresses in his three piece suit and heads to work every morning to read the newspaper and work on the four or five cases he still has.

The associates landed at firms that pay a little less than PM&M, for a little more work. They are told in vague terms that they're on the partnership track, but they know better. They're 10th year associates, and the firms haven't made a new partner in a decade (but plenty of associates have come and gone).

One of the junior partners gets an in-house job in Texas. His wife divorces him and keeps the kids and house, but he buys a Porsche and starts working out a lot. Life is "good."

The other junior partner kills himself.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

Here’s a story about clients and how they are the currency of partnership.

A young, charismatic man, GJ, gets out of the navy and goes to law school. His naval experience, talent, and gift of gab help him build quite a reputation in the admiralty field, and he builds a well-respected firm that grows to 20-30 lawyers.

Over the years, as he gets older, GJ starts to pull back, and other partners begin moving in to stake their claims. These guys have no clients of their own but were made partner in the 80s, when that didn’t matter. Now, they are fighting amongst themselves as to which clients are “theirs.”

Generally the clients don’t care. Their work is being done and the old man is still the face of the company, still visits them and takes them out for a few drinks to talk sailing stories. One of these clients, Refinery, is claimed by a partner named Paul, who for the next 20 years jealously guards their business.

Of course Paul eventually doesn’t do any work for the client, and is content to let associates do everything and just collect the money because of course everyone knows the client is his. This is how it goes for all of them, really—all these partners in their 60s who never developed their own business but who have no problem telling associates the partnership is closed unless they bring in new business.

Eventually Paul retires too. One associate, Greg, who is very talented and experienced and has a great relationship with Refinery, gets passed over. Another partner has decided that he gets to inherit Refinery, you see. Our firm requires partners to manage clients and well, you’re not a partner. Greg quits and lo and behold takes the general counsel position at Refinery (for an 80% bump in salary).

Now imagine the glee with which Greg calls outside counsel, his former firm, and tells them Refinery’s business is no longer theirs.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

It's been so fun watching all of you grow and wilt, from scheming LSAT gamers to advice-ignoring idiot applicants; from bright-eyed gunner fucks to salty dog 2L wastrels to 3L job grubbers. As first years with lovely drawers, you bitched about your completely manageable babby workloads, complaining about your tiny little salad plates being too full. Now you have graduated to gatekeepers for the li'l maggots behind you, stuck interviewing boring snot nosed sycophants that are one step behind you so the rest of us can generate the billables that pay your salaries. I love you guys

Whitlam posted:

Okay, here's the AusPost. Keep in mind I'm in Victoria, so there may be some minor differences between states, but I think it's fairly nationally consistent. Apologies for wordiness, and I can clarify anything people have more questions about. Fwiw, I'm about three weeks off completing my PLT.

Tl;dr is university -> PLT/SLT -> admission.

If you want to be a lawyer in Australia, your first step is to go to university. You can do law either undergrad (LLB) or postgrad (JD). The majority of people studying law as an undergrad do a double degree, where you study two degrees concurrently. Bachelor of Arts (I think it's called liberal arts in the US) and Bachelor of Laws is a really common combination, but other combinations exist. At my law school, the ratio was something like 30 students studying a single law degree, 120 studying double degrees.

To apply to study law undergrad you don't need to take LSAT, your year 12 grades just have to be good enough that a university will make you an offer, same as any other course. If you want to study a JD, then you have to take the LSAT.

Standard length for a full time LLB is four years, double degree is five, and a JD is three, although keep in mind that since it's postgrad, you've probably already spent three years at university.

If you've made it this far and still want to practice law, your next step is to either complete your Practical Legal Training (PLT), after which you'll be awarded a Diploma of Legal Practice, or get hired as a graduate lawyer and complete supervised legal training (SLT). PLT takes around four months full-time or eight part-time, whereas SLT takes a minimum of 12 months. PLT is basically an additional course, whereas SLT is more like on-the-job training.

While individual firms/lawyers might have a hiring preference for PLT vs SLT, in my experience there isn't an industry-wide perception of one being better than the other, especially after a few years of practice. The statistic I heard is that around 80% of people complete PLT while 20% do SLT. This is because a law firm might be able to take on 10 graduates per year, but a PLT provider can take as many students as they have the capacity for. My provider, the College of Law, says they've had 60,000 students over 40 years.

After you've completed law school and PLT or SLT, your next step is to apply to the relevant legal admissions board. This is a pretty involved process, where you have to provide transcripts, proof of graduation, and make disclosures relating to your fitness to be admitted. The disclosures you have to make relate to legal issues you might have had (including parking fines and speeding tickets), and academic issues you might have had (including allegations of academic misconduct). Controversially, you also are asked to disclose mental health issues you have or might have had. As you can imagine, this is a pretty fraught issue, and the advice on if you should disclose and to what extent ranges from "disclose everything and do it in detail" to "gently caress them, don't say a thing".

If you're found to be a "fit and proper person", that's pretty much it. You get your admission date, head along and get admitted at the Supreme Court (simplified Australian court hierarchy is Magistrates' Court -> County Court -> Supreme Court -> High Court), have your name added to the Australian Legal Profession Register, and you're a lawyer. Don't call yourself a lawyer before admission, it's technically an offence with fines and jail time. Also, if the disciplinary tribunal finds out you've done it, you're likely to be struck off.

For those wondering about the Bar, well, solicitors don't take it here. That's reserved for Barristers, and is a whole other thing.

LeschNyhan posted:

Couple of bullet points about becoming a lawyer in Canada, I guess. I know there are other Canadian lawyers in here better positioned to actually talk about this.

- You need a Bachelor's degree to apply to law school, unless your undergrad grade average is three digits before the decimal. Yes, these people exist, there were two in my year. Yes, this is why you will not be in the top 10% of your class.

- The advice about US school entry, such as LSAT and GPA being Very Important is applicable to Canadian admissions. Don't be a lovely student. Toronto, McGill, Osgoode, UBC are considered top of the pack currently, with UVic and Queen's not far behind.

- Don't go to a law school outside Canada unless you're planning on staying there. Really big-name schools like Yale or Oxford, maybe, but going anywhere else is probably just a signal you couldn't make it into a Canadian school. Our laws and especially our Constitution are nothing like the United States' or even most of the Commonwealth so you'll be at a distinct disadvantage when you come back. Law school here is way cheaper and if you can sleep in your parents' basement you might even get out with a debt level that will make our American compatriots weep with envy.

- You will still graduate with some debt and a substance problem.

- Quebecers should be familiar with the Civil Law system, probably, which means going to a Quebec law school. If you do this, you should probably speak Quebequois, or at least French.

- Unlike the US, you have to write your bar exams (and associated Professional Legal Training course put on by your provincial Law Society), and article. Articling is like a one-year apprenticeship that follows law school, and you can't practice without completing your articles. You apply for them like jobs, you're hired for them like jobs, and there's no guarantee you get to stay on with your firm afterward. Ontario tried an alternate route from law school that didn't require articles because there weren't enough articling jobs available, but I think that's dead last I heard.

- There are still not enough articling jobs available. You may have to convince two or more firms/lawyers to 'share' your articles, or work for peanuts. Or for free.

- Do everything you can to get practical experience in law school. Clinic courses, student legal advice programs, whatever you can. Law school teaches you nothing about client interaction, file management, or the actual practice of law, so get your feet wet as soon as possible. I don't know what's on offer elsewhere, but UBC has a great student legal advice program and a bunch of clinics.

I'm happy to answer questions about : opening a solo practice early in my career, and later working in panda law (non-profit feel-good law that makes no money). I will probably not be able to answer questions about working in a real firm. I am also incredibly lucky, so any/all of my advice may be totally useless if you are not at least as lucky as me.

Also, don't go to law school. It's a terrible idea.

Edit: Oh, that was timely. This Canadian up here, GET MONEY? He's making a mistake.

Edit 2: Also if you want to get laughed at more for being a Canadian considering law school there is also a website for that purpose. The best thread it ever produced, however, will give you ungrateful 0Ls a perfect insight into crim defence work: http://lawstudents.ca/forums/topic/28005-what-lawyers-actually-do-day-to-day-cyoa/

Alexeythegreat posted:

I'd do an effortpost about Russian law market but honestly all you need to know is that Russia is a loving lie and there is only Moscow (I don't work in Moscow because I couldn't afford rent if I were to move to Moscow) and the best salary you can expect for the first couple of years out of law school is maybe 60k rubles/month, which would translate roughly to about 30k$/year in NYC, making "okay work expects me to wear a suit what the gently caress do I buy a suit with" an actual problem that exists among junior lawyers. That's the best case scenario, too

Also, all contracts and disputes involving any significant amounts of Russian money are subject to English law and the jurisdiction of English courts anyway

Soothing Vapors posted:

You had one job you ancient gently caress

FrozenVent posted:

Hey so I was thinking should I go to law school?

Phil Moscowitz posted:

And I did it. You're here, aren't you?

TheMadMilkman posted:

The Toona posts are missing the one where he states which classrooms and offices he and the study partner defiled.

Fuzzie Dunlop posted:

Can we get a summer to update those graphs? 2007 drat! (still relevant tho).

quote:

Adar – Not even a lawyer really. Thread hero who freed himself of the shackles of a JD to play poker professionally and live on islands. No, you won’t be able to do the same thing.

Whitlam posted:

If anyone is curious, I can write up a (short) post about the process of coming a lawyer, at least in my state in Australia. It's pretty different from the US in some regards.