I don't think firms will do big layoffs while summers are there. I think we will see trickles until September.

2--

1 here. I disagree. Firms no longer care about what summer associates think. Indisputable evidence of that will be on display when firms deny offers to substantial portions--if not most--of their respective classes and defer start dates for those who receive offers.

In the meantime, the upcoming mass dismissals during the summer program will help steel the nerves of the summers for what is likely to befall them at the end of the summer (in most instances through no fault of their own, just like the current associates being let go).

1 --
I hope you are wrong but can see your logic.

4--

1 & 3 here. This is not something about which I would take pride in being right. So, I'm with you in saying that I hope I am wrong. Partner nature being what it is,however, I have my doubts.

Why keep bringing in hoardes of SAs if they do no real work, cost precious $$$, and the firms no longer care what they think ? Wouldn't the time/money be better spent invested in keeping current associates or hiring (economic-based) laid-off laterals who have some useful work experience?

6-

1,3 & 5 here. It is not a one-or-the-other proposition. Firms made decisions last year about the # of summer associates to bring on board. The downturn in the broader economy has been a lot steeper and broad-based than many originally thought. In addition, the near disappearance of corporate and structured finance work means that firm revenues are off even more than folks in law firms originally expected.

2009-2010 (maybe even 2011) is not going to be pretty for most firms. It's all about survival now at the firm level, and individual partners are finding out how much/little book they have and whether it's portable. Revenues are going to plunge this year at many firms, and partners are not going to want to take that hit. So, they're going to cut costs as and where they can.

Firms have been around long enough to know that they--at least those that survive this depression we're in--need a steady and reliable stream of bodies to fill their associate offices featuring revolving doors. Law schools offer reliable recruiting grounds, so firms will still feel like they have to keep those channels open...at least partially open (20-30%).

Since it's a slow day and these appear to be intelligent commentators, allow me to ask -- if "partner logic" is something disparaging, what is it that attracts you to Big Law and makes you stay? Is it purely financial? Do you fear turning into one of those partners who engage in that kind of logic if you stay?

This is a discussion many of us had back in 81 when antitrust died, some left, some stayed, those who stayed did incredibly well but ended up running these firms, using partner logic, although they were once like you folks. Very rarely are they truly happy. But that's true everywhere!! I dont have a real point of view, just wondering what it looks like to you.

6, i think that firms shut cut the summer programs way back and take care of the attorneys they have.

law shucks would be so much more useful if it only tracked attorneys - staff are barely people and have been obsoleted by technology - laying them off is not news

Is Kashmir Hill an oxymoron?

8--

7 here. Maybe it's nostalgia, or all of the articles I've been reading about how the practice of law has changed in recent years (by Professor Bill Henderson at Indiana--obligatory Hoosiers shout out), but the practice of law has changed a great deal since '81. What made me, and I suppose any other rational person stay as long as I did, is the money and the relationships I was able to develop with colleagues. And I have been able to keep several of those relationships going over the years.

I doubt that I would be very happy as a partner today--no such thing as job security approximating tenure (not full tenure, in the university sense, mind you) any more, and the sense that I still belong to a profession dwindles by the day. BigLaw today is now nothing more than big business...and a bad one, at that.

To answer your question: for those partners who take it upon themselves to train and teach the next generation, my description probably does not fit and your point is well taken. For the vast majority, however, it is probably a tinge disparaging; but, in my defense, it is far less disparaging than, say, the contrived termination performance reviews that are either ending or substantially curtailing the legal careers of many good people. The fact that this is happening here in the America's heartland hurts even worse--we're not supposed to treat people this way.

9--

Most firms are already "taking care" of many of their current associates in the Jules Winnfield (Pulp Fiction) sense. My experience in this field has taught me that kind of care is contagious, and summers will soon find themselves holding on to a similar floatation device--sans boat.

10--

Shame on you for speaking of people as if they were themselves a typewriter or whiteout. Poor form...very poor form.

14th ear of corn for Elie.

8 - appreciate the serious question. Personally, I like the high-level work, often intense and almost always interesting. I also get to work with some of the smartest people around. Money is a plus, but not enough to keep me around absent other positives.

I think it is important to note that not all partners suffer from the "partner logic" problem. I do aspire to make it all the way (2 years to go!) and I have found myself a few role models that are similar to me personally, and have none of the negative attributes generally associated with big law partners. Granted, they will never become firm managers or have a $5 million book of business, but seem quite content pulling home $500 - $750k per year. Sounds good to me too.

Stealth layoffs are definitely ongoing. I am astonished that Shearman & Sterling hasn't been mentioned more often. Word from some of the leftovers is that they are getting killed.

16--

I heard, and was wondering about, the same thing. I hear they're hemorrhaging cash due to severe lack of work across multiple groups. That being said, in fairness to Shearman, the same could be said of many firms, especially in the City. I mean, Weil is letting people go, and Shearman does not have anywhere near Weil's bankruptcy practice.

8 here,

The practice of law changed a lot between 78 or so and 82, it became very statutory driven, and with the near death experience of 81 became very overhead conscious and non collegial at those levels. I have to agree with those who say that it is associated with the opportunity to practice law at the highest level, professionalism and craftsmanship. But billing rates are so high, we rarely a chance to allow our outside lawyers to do that anymore.

I know a few who have managed to sustain it all the way up -- just wondering what motivates the current generation --

Honestly, it's a sucker's bet to work in big law for more than a few years. Aside from the insane billing rates, the politics of getting ahead in 90 percent of firms is driven by a myriad of factors, most of which are completely beyond your control. Including for women, biology. Want to have more than one kid before becoming partner? Not going to happen. Unless you're the most stellar associate (and I'm talking Supreme Court clerk, with several major players backing you), you're going to have to either choose the child or plan on being railroaded with the quickness. Seriously.

The best advice I can give a newbie associate? Plan for being there for 3-5 years max. Don't get the golden handcuffs, and immediately seek out government work.

Dwight howard is gay

one of the most informative comment threads in ATL history . . . thanks

fd

I actually like working in Biglaw and could see myself doing same for many years. I have a fulfilling personal life and my job doesn't define me as a human being. I'm present during the insufferable deadlines that make for 80 weeks all month long, but I also take my vacations and make sure I have dinner with my family as often as possible.

I would love working in Biglaw if the opaqueness that seems to fuel the partnership's "control satisfaction" over associates were absolved. Opaque decision-making is what drives the politics, back-stabbing, and mean-spiritedness of the treatment lawyers inflict on their colleagues. I'm not saying every day should be "koombaya" at work, but the cogs might be a little happier at work if they were at least lead to believe their input matters. We're all for making sure your ppp is competitive.....I think most lawyers realize that ppp keeps the rainmakers around and brings them to a firm. I'm not sure what my point is other than I don't think working in Biglaw for many years is a sucker's bet. I just think that the partnership has their thumb over many associate's "job satisfaction" button and when and how they decide to pull the trigger remains a mystery.

Wait a second, am I on Above the Law? Based on the civilized, thoughtful comments of actual attorneys in this thread, I'm not so sure.

Is there some sort of Autoadmit-D-Bag-Tough Stud Online Persona convention this weekend that has the little misinthropic twits distracted?

Great comments. I also enjoy working biglaw, although the profession has certainly changed over the last decade. The problem is that, when the markets were roaring, biglaw hired too many bodies. Firms stopped caring about the quality of new associates and hired anyone with a pulse.

Now it's time for a reboot. When the economy recovers in 2012-2015, I expect firms to be much smaller and more elite. And this is probably a good thing long term, though I certainly feel for all the young associates (and law students) who will never have a chance to start their careers.

And then 25 ruined it...

To those who were around in the prior downturns such as 1980-82 and 1990-91, what happened when the economy turned around? Did the lawyers who had been cast out return to private practice? Did they go somewhere else? Will the same result occur this time?

27 - i hate to say this, but many good lawyers never recovered after being laid off during prior recessions. Unfortunately, firms perceive laid off attorneys as damaged goods.

I agree with 28. Also, this time, firms expanded to a much greater degree than in prior periods. Firms are now retrenching to "normal" and will not go back to their prior inflated levels. Many lawyers who have been cut loose will have a difficult time getting back into practice. Those who were cut loose before developing marketable lawyering skills will be particularly bad off. I see no way that the profession can absorb the thousands of new law grads trying to enter the profession each year.

This is an interesting thread. Thanks to all.

I graduated in the late 80's from a T-14 school and worked in a smaller firm (that imploded and merged into a V100.)

My experience was that the "training" touted by Big Law firms was illusory but there was interesting work available.

My paralegal and I performed work that other (V-20) firms used teams of six-eight associates to perform. Although a lot of this work was document "review" it also included extensive analysis of the document's substantive content, witness interviews, and pre-filing analysis/evaluation of potential causes of action against various parties.

The client's in house attorneys were extremely satisfied with our product but eventually the work ran out and the firm imploded/merged. If I had been less loyal to the firm (how naive), I probably should have gone independent when there was a brief opening to assume similar responsibilities (outside the firm) by covering several states.

A hiring partner at a boutique litigation firm made a comment that struck me as sincere "the work you've done is at the level of our eighth year associates; but you haven't done the work that's at the level of our first year associates." (At this point, I had around 2 years experience so I took this as a sign of how rigid and limiting the lock-step system is.)

I ended up pursuing a solo litigation practice instead and found it more satisfying because of the problems inherent in the Big Law environment.

But, having obtained a solide legal education and some Big Law experience probably contributed to gaining the confidence necessary to combat the resources and abuse that Big Law firms attempt to get away with.

In recent years, I am observing V-100 (even V-20) firms expend substantial amounts of time on increasingly weaker legal theories in recent years. I take this as a sign that the firms are under increasing pressure to seize such billing opportunities and expect their behavior to continue to deteriorate.

I am sympathetic to the associates who face these tough decisions in this environment. Unlike their recent predecessors, many fine attorneys will not have the opportunity to move into in-house or government positions or even laterally to firms where they might benefit.

Are the ears of corn supposed to mean something?

I am a 2009 graduate. I was set to begin working at a huge, prestigious firm this fall and it is not going to happen. When I made the decision to take on significant debt to finance my legal education, firms were paying $130k a year. I knew if I did well in school, I would get one of those jobs. Maybe I should have done more homework, but that was the extent of my knowledge about the legal field before taking the plunge.

For example, I probably should have gone to the U.S. Dept. of Labor website and looked at the governments occupational outlook for lawyers, available at: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos053.htm. Had I done so, I would have discovered that economist predict only 84,000 attorney jobs being created between 2006 and 2016. Further, I could have investigated and discovered that something like 40,000 people graduate from law school every year. Finally, I could have used some of my already expensive undergraduate education to determine that 84,000 jobs is significantly less than 400,000. Maybe after this research I would have made a more rational decision . . .

Big law is great experience if you can get it. After being a partner in a specialized field. I am seriously thinking about going on my own. I know I can feed myself. At $350/hour instead of $650 I can work less and keep more for myself.

Got an e-mail from a friend at DLA Piper yesterday. She said she received an unprecedented number of e-mails Friday about the importance of having her May time entered by the end of day Monday.

Speculation is rampant that this is the prelude to more layoffs next week. Apparently, something similar happened in February right before Black Thursday.

34, or maybe it is just partners trying to get their bills out more quickly. Lots of pressure to do that in order to keep up cash flow.

34

In today's market, if time is not entered in the month the services were performed, you cannot bill it. Clients will tell you to write it off.

31, this info comes from Law Shucks. Get it? Shucking corn?

Many of the new law graduates are not used to set back. This is the generation that is accustomed to getting trophies for 10th place and no one ever finishes in last place. I think these kind of policies are not helpful as it is a rude awakening when entering the real world.

As with every generation, there will be duds and stars.

7 - I believe your forecast that the recovery will show signs of life in 2010 is probably overly optimistic. 25's prediction that the economy will begin to recover in 2012 - 2015 is probably more realistic. (We'll see.)

Since experienced lawyers practicing in large firms seem to be responding to this thread, I'm curious what the current volume of transactional business is compared to their firm's current capacity to do such work.

ATL's bloggers are not reporters nonetheless investigative journalists. ATL publishes facts about what happened but this site (including the comments) usually focuses on layoffs, compensation, and rhumors.

7, 12, 15, 16, 17, 23, 25, 28, 29, & 33, (or anyone else with personal knowlege) --- Roughly what percentage of the available time of transactional attorneys at your firm is being utilized. Without mentioning any firm names or cities, general reference to firm size (V20, V50, V100) would be helpful.

I believe this information would help the students and soon to be cubbie attorneys understand the gravity of the situation (or lack thereof) better than historic information or rhumors about individual firms. The problems are industry wide.

Securitizated financings recently provided approximately 45% of the financings. Now, this market is effectively dead.

Bank dried up last fall and, as an "outsider" to their activities, I can't determine the extent of the current level of activity but I don't see any signs that it has revived much.

Several of you stated that you believe there will be another round of mass layoffs this summer or immediately following the SA's departures. What is the average number of hours billed by associates in your firm compared to your firm's minimum billing "target".

Barring an economic recovery within a time frame that the firms' finances can sustain, this information should be a lot more useful in telling us what the "equillibrium point" is and how many more associates are likely to face the axe.

Thanks In Advance.

23 here- i work in securities lit enforcement...we're kind of an isolated group. not sure about the transactional attys, but i know corporate is very slow.

Enforcement is hot. So is transactional work driven by other events. For example, people buying assets of distressed companies, green energy, tech licensing, some pharma areas, stimulous money beneficiaries, tax structuring. Plain old corporate is pretty slow.

Stay away from bubblehead classes. Take real substance so you know how to do something when you get out. Women in the Law will get you nowhere while a UCC class might do you some good.

34- we get emails like that every month...clients don't want to see May work on July's bills (now more than ever). I wouldn't worry too much.

34 - yeah at a V20 and am getting those messages too, but also getting emails asking us to tell them how busy we are and if we can handle more work (this one seems geared more towards layoffs). We're slow across all practice areas including the one that should be producing - bankruptcy. i wouldn't be shocked to see another round of layoffs but i bet they come through performance reviews. funny part is our partners had a special meeting telling the bankruptcy associates how busy the bankruptcy group was going to be and that they shouldn't worry if they are slow. those partners are probably sweating it now because the work doesn't appear to have materialized (while other firms are hiring laterals and appear busy) and partners from other groups are starting to ask questions.

40 -at a V25 and mgmt budgeted for much lower than the 1900 hour target for this year. We have had our layoffs. When I walk around our main office in NYC I see a few empty offices on each floor and the phones are not ringing on my floor nearly like they did last year. It is basically dead quiet. People used to act busy on my floor but it seems that they gave up on that because it wasn't that convincing. Others are still putting in face time but in the end all that really matters is whether the people in charge like you. If you are not doing work for the people in charge then I think you should be a little concerned because those people are likely to be cut first. I really don't know where I stand so I am prepared for anything.

Also seeing a tremendous amount of churning on the matters we do have but not sure if all those hours actually get billed to the client. For instance, not uncommon to have twice the associates needed for a particular project. Or common to see associates duplicating the work of another. Pretty crazy.

Agree with most that has been written here.

Lower end of the V-100 here, a lateral from a V-20 (and still have many friends there or used to be there), the difference between this time and the last slowdown for me (I wasn't around practicing law back in the early 90's) is that other departments aren't picking up the slack. When the dot-com bust happened it wasn't great for the economy, but the banks were still around, clients were still litigating and deals were still happening. In the current economy clients simply can't afford hefty lawyers' fees, regardless of the manner of the matter.

I wish I could be more hopeful but young associates ('07 grads and younger) and current law students are in the unenviable position of having bought into a commodity at its highest price and lowest value in generations. The junior associates I know are getting ZERO training due to hours hoarding and office politics, and I don't see it turning around anytime soon. This is a service-based profession, regardless how good you are you are only as successful as your clients can pay you, and right now they simply can't...and I'm seeing things like 45 mentioned that I never thought I would see. In one of the few deals we have a relatively junior equity partner is doing the majority of the work, even though some of the senior and even mid-level associates are much more familiar with the client and could do the deal more efficiently, but due to the higher billing rate and extra time involved, its "better" for the firm to keep its billing up. Unbelievable what this profession has turned into.

32,
But you also should have considered how many attorneys quit or retire every year in normal/good economies, and on average factoring in inevitable recessions. Jobs "created" is actual growth, it does not include jobs vacated. Even if there were no new attorney jobs created it would not mean another attorney need never be educated/trained.

Oh and also, (insert promissory estoppel joke).

Funny. I came out of law school in '95. We were coming off a law recesssion, and jobs were hard to get for about half of the class at a top five law school. (Yeah, you read that right--half of the class at one of the best schools in the country.) It took years before the underemployed slack in the lawyer labor market was taken up. Years.

Some classmates I had just never really recovered--they just wandered away from law once it became clear that years of underemployment made their path too hard.

For the next 4-5 years, I expect something similar, only worse, because the profession became so overgrown with lawyers and newly-minted law students.

I cannot imagine the fear of being a relatively recent grad or associate with big loans, a city cost of living, but without a book (i.e., 99% of biglaw associates). You guys are fucked. Seriously fucked. You don't even know.

Oh, and the person who said this: "I really don't know where I stand so I am prepared for anything."

When no one tells you what to expect, it means no one who matters in the firm gives enough of a shit about you to clue you in. And when no one who matters gives a shit about an associate at a law firm, that associate is gone, gone, gone.

Welcome to law, folks.

48, you seem like a real ass.

48 sounds harsh, but it is true

I have seen the legal industry transform itself over the past 40 years. This era is truly the nadir. I am thankful that the worse came in the twilight years of my career. I blame the decline of this business on PPP emphasis ushered by the younger generation of partners and the out of control lockstep salary structures for associates. In the '70s through the early '80s, attorneys worked hard, developed a book, forged alliances with the right people and got ahead while preserving a high standard of work product and ethic. Today, all of this takes a second seat to plain greed, especially the greed glamorized in the late '80s.

I will be retiring for good within a year. This business is no fun anymore and believe me, it once was exhilirating. Poster no. 48 echoes some truisms. Todays' generation of lawyers and law students are blindly guided by greed and the dream of a big salary. They foolishly buy into "the firm is a family and we are in this together." Take it from me, if you work for a firm, you are not kin, you are an employee. An employee is here to make money for the owners of the firm. Many people at the firm are terminated every week. I wouldn't remember 99.9% of them as I never really cared about them. If you still think the legal profession promotes loyalty, a good life (balanced), and genuine appreciation from your colleagues and supervisors, then you never got over that Santa Claus does not exist. How smart can you really be to incur so much debt for an opportunity in this miserable business? I give some credit to the cup cake lawyer who started his own business albeit with his parent's wallet. He is trying something different. Too bad in this economy not many will buy a $4 latte to go with that $3 cup cake. Poster 48 puts it too kindly. It will get a lot worse and I truly do not see economic recovery until after Obama is voted out.

Retired partner here: I've been through a number of hard economic times starting in the late 60s and early 70s. The economy cycles around in circles. Over the years, I found that the law business tended to hold up even in difficult economic times. From what I've read here about layoffs and work loads, I think this time around might be a little different than the past. I think the difference comes from the massive overhiring that has taken place in BigLaw and MidLaw over the past 10 years or so. It's been a bubble, just as dangerous as some of the other bubbles we've all lived through. Add to all of this the fact that there are so many law schools pumping out so many new lawyers each year, and you have a real mismatch between available work and available manpower. I don't know what all this means, other than difficult times. Good luck to you guys, because you'll likely need it.

This advice has been given time and again. Don't go to law school until you know you will love it, you want to go with all your heart and will work your ass off. Otherwise, you will dig youself into a debt hole and won't be able to get or stand the work that will allow you to pay it all off. Go the best school you can get into and study like crazy. If you are going to New England, ask yourself if it is worth it and whether you will get a job. Unless you are at Harvard, Stanford or Yale, there really are few guarantees.

Partner Emeritus has the foresight and knowledge that can only be achieved with all the experience that 10 months of law school provides.

In light of all that has been said on this thread, doesn't the profession have a duty to cut back on the number of graduating law students? Either most law schools should close, or law schools should begin reducing their class sizes so that the number of graduating law students is reduced dramatically within a short time.

I don't see how those running the law school industry can sleep at night, knowing what they are doing to the majority of grads.

I don't know why some folks here are so hard on P.E.

1) Its obvious a joke poster, and not a "real partner emertius" (although I'm amazed at the number of people that think he or she is serious), if you think the joke is unfunny, fine, you can just ignore him.

2) If P.E. is truly a first year, he or she gets more points in my book for at least being a little bit knowledgable how law firms are ran, even if being false and satirical. I'd take that over a top-tiered student that thinks a Yale or Harvard degree will prevent them from being Lathamed.

No one is safe.

55 - What the idiots making such claims forget is that biglaw only hires a certain number of students from a certain number of schools. If they hire from the top 25 schools, it doesn't matter if there's 1,000,000,000 schools. 25 is still 25. They CHOSE to over-hire. The number of grads actually has very little to do with it.

In general, of course the industry should cut back on the number of grads. But as far as biglaw, specifically, that's not the problem.

56 - Everyone knows you are PE. Shut up.

58, not only am I not partner emeritus, I'm actually probably closer to being a partner emeritus than the first year supposedly making the posts, I don't even know how to post pictures on this site. I just can't believe people get bent out of shape over a very apparent parody.

-56

48 is completely right, unfortunately.

57, the one exception is a strong regional school. Let's face it, top grads are not rushing to places like St Louis, Reno, Portland. You can go to a regional school and do fine in those markets if you are at the top of your class.

61 --

and what about the rest of the class-- the "bottom" 90%? What do we do with them?

That is a problem. People still need some of those laywers to be DAs etc. You just cannot go in thinking that $160K is at the end of the rainbow. But I think that has been the case for a long time. Not enough law students have the sense to take the Cs and Bs they got as a sign that they aren't cut out for this. A person in my school dropped out in week 2. I really admired her courage. More need that.

Interesting comment from 48 about what to read into not being clued in by a key partner about what is afoot in the firm.

Regarding PE, I challenge anyone who says that PE is a law student to point out something PE has said that is wrong.

I am in a smaller mid-west firm - 25 attorneys - all areas have slowed down, even bankruptcy. We represent GM in local products cases, too. No layoffs yet, but who knows?

Do any attorneys reading this (besides recenlty terminated first and second years) regret going into law? Why or why not? It still seems like a relatively well-remunerated and respected profession? Are there other factors? What career would you have pursued instead?

62 - That's exactly the point. There are no more grads "going into big law" then big law allows. The other 90% can take whatever they can find, but the point is that the total national number of grads has little effect on biglaw.

3,

FWIW, I think you are completely right. The fucked up hiring system requires law firms to be prescient beyond all human bounds. Some of the summers were wooed just after 1st semester grades were out in 2007/2008, 18 months ago. The others are 3 or 9 months out.

It's impossible for a law firm to have realized the current state. No one cares whether summers will feel offended when associates are given the boot. I wonder if may be firing associates while the summers are around is a way of cold offering.

67 -- so all that matters is what biglaw needs? what about the lives of the rest of the lawyers in this country?

69,
All I'm saying is that people who say that fewer grads would help biglaw are mostly wrong.

As for the other 90%: Some of them should never have gone to law school. As 61 said, some lower-ranked schools provide good opportunities in regional markets. And, as 63 said we need DA's among other non-biglaw lawyers.

I, personally, don't really care what big law needs, and yes I think that there should be fewer law schools and smaller classes. My point, which you're missing, is that biglaw determined it's own position. Not law schools. Not the ABA.

- 67/57

57 (&32) - I've often wondered what could reduce the flood of graduates. Law Schools are a profit center for the universities and corporations that own them. Any change is probably going to have to be forced upon them by external forces.

The only thing that I can imagine would that would apply meaningful pressure would be to link law a school's eligibility for student loans (i.e., the number of loans and maximum amount of the loan) to that school's default rates.

Given the magnitude of the mismatch that 32 cites, even closing some of the weaker institutions would only begin to chip away at the annual surplus. I believe the feds had to resort to something similar to curtail trade school fraud. (I'd amend the bankruptcy code so that federally insured educational loans would be dischargeable under circumstances similar
to the pre-1998 code and private educational loans are generally dischargeable (undoing the 2005 amendments).

8 here,

to 27 and others -- in 81 and again in the 90's i think you saw a lot of good people go in house, or establish small boutiques. There were some similarities but the work falloff seemed less dramatic (eg, Milbank lost Chase, antitrust went away, ) but then the resolution trust corp came in.

One difference here and now is that the market is just saturated with supply, there's a lot more lawyers staying in practice longer --also a lot of the good government jobs are literally being grabbed by the supreme court clerks, so much for the big firm training, which was valid back in the day. Maybe now, although I haven't seen it much-- i do more training than the firm does. So there's really no place to go, the pipeline seems to be very full, even at the ngo's which are chock a block with voluntary retirees and alpha mom's who took time off to raise their kids and then went ngo.

I'm a client now, and i know that the senior partners on the "inside" are utterly flabbergated and horrified in equal parts by how fast this came in and how long it is lasting. They are sick about the need for any layoffs, but can't see how to avoid them if the rainmakers are to be kept. in most cases they are trying to find work for their friends of 20 years who ARE partners (and I am talking the 3 to 5 mm a year folks in terms of billing)

I also agree entirely with 48, who made a fabulous point, if you arent' completely and totally made to feel "in" you are at risk.

i hear from our regional counsel, like the environmental folks, that things are chugging along, it is the transactional side that has been wiped out. Litigation seems to have been down, maybe coming back a little (but various federal tort reforms have calmed a lot of that down too) I hear from the big 4 accounting firms that there are signs of life in the m and a world, and i would expect to see more of that q4 -- but structured finance is dead. I see eurobonds are making a comeback :)) And tax should be huge the next couple of years.

8

No one made you go to law school, no one required you to practice law after law school. Your choices are yours and they have consequences.

If you are outside of biglaw, go get some clients and make some dough.

You're welcome,

68

73 - Does that mean that I don't have any promissory estoppel claims?

71 - Or, just abolish all public funding and loan insuring for all education.

Does no one here work at a V10 firm that seems to be doing well? What kind of TTT commenters populate this board?

"Regarding PE, I challenge anyone who says that PE is a law student to point out something PE has said that is wrong."

-

He said he turned down an order of the coif student from Harvard for a job.

Which would be slightly difficult since Harvard doesn't have order of the coif.

47 - this is 32. I highly doubt enough attorneys are retiring or leaving the profession voluntarily to account for the massive difference in those 2 numbers. Further, the government states that there are only something like 800,000 attorneys working in the U.S. today. I am no actuary, but I highly doubt that nearly half of the attorneys in the field plan on leaving the profession voluntarily in the next 10 years.

As for 71, I believe you may be onto something. Overall, the is the most mature discussion I have ever seen on this website.

77 re PE:

He could have meant order of coif-equivalent. He is using it more colloquially to denote a top graduate.

78 - Of course not right now. But normally enough leave to make up a huge majority of the difference, yeah. 10 to 11 percent growth over 10 years is very good. If it weren't for this recession and people keeping jobs that they otherwise wouldn't, the numbers would work out fine. And yes, about 1/3 of the industry over 10 years is normal.

79,

Shut up, please.

@77

You must have a hard on for PE. I recall the post you make reference to. First, PE did not say he turned down a HLS student for a job. He was making an anectdotal reference to a time in which his firm's management committee passed over a HLS associate for partnership electing to go with a Case Western grad. He then stated that it doesn't matter whether you went to HLS, have law review or order of the coif honors, these things do not guarantee partnership. His point was that the ability to rainmake trumps law school honors when trying to make partner. Whether or not PE is a real partner is irrelevant. He/She has a brutal insight into the legal profession that most of us refuse to believe. I for one, took stopped drinking the biglaw kool aid many years ago. Best decision I ever made.

82,

Shut up, please.

Agree that whether or not PE is a real partner is mostly irrelevant. All that matters is whether he/she is right.

Me parece que Parnter Emeritus es un part-time racist y un full-time douche bag.

Great posts, [almost] everyone. This confirms my fears that this is a lot worse than people outside BigLaw understand. Like many, being laid-off over the past 6 months was the first major academic/career setback I've faced.

Everyone (family and the few non-lawyer friends I've managed to keep) keeps telling me how shocked they are that I was laid-off, with my "fancy degrees" and honors, and knowing the job sacrifices I've made (missing vacations and a family funeral (still pissed about that one), and working two Christmas Days via Citrix).

I've held the belief that we're severely fucked, that any pick up in transactional work will be met at most firms by existing (post-lay-off) corporate capacity and the deferred incoming classes.

I'm trying to go in-house, but hiring is dreadfully slow right now, and I'm sure that there are 100's of apps with T14 degrees and V20 firms for every opening right now. Head hunters who were fighting over me 12 months ago couldn't be less interested right now.

Good luck to all. We need it.

82-

Jesus Christ, please spare me the idea I have a hard-on for PE if you're going to post shit like that. You're clearly projecting.

The guy fucked up. Quit making excuses and acting defensive.

As the great Michael Ray Richardson would say "The ship be sinking!" :P Not sure where MRR is but I guess he must be busy getting ready for the NBA finals!

A response to the post regarding the slowdown in--of all things--bankruptcy work that some of the posters above talked about. I was talking with a buddy of mine who works in the AmLaw 100. They said that work has been so slow over the past few months, and that partners in other practice groups in the firm are beginning to ask questions why work hasn't picked up.

When I asked about it, they also said that some in other groups are surprised that everytime they pick up the paper they read about some company filing for bankruptcy protection, so they ask, "Where's the work?" Apparently, that firm wants to see its bankruptcy practice get enough work not only for itself, but also for lawyers in other groups. My friend says that their practice has not yet seen enough work to keep its own associates/lawyers busy. Apparently this is going in other places, as well.

Elie, get a thread going on this.

Did anyone read the article in DC LAWYER written by the President of the DC BAR discussing how you can discuss becoming a lawyer with your child? It also included pointers on how you should encourage them to go to law school and dispel myths about the profession.

The ABA is the problem, here. I agree that the bottom 90% (whatever that means) need to fill spots in the legal profession, The sheer number of law schools(profitcenters) that don't cut the mustard encourage kids that the 160k dream is alive and well. The ABA, the student loan industry and state bar associations are scratching each other's backs to keep the machine moving.

I know the general policy is to almost exclusively malign biglaw, but mid- and small-law are hardly immune. I was recently laid off from mid-law. I guess I should be grateful I was given at least a token severance, but I'm mostly annoyed.

Everyone says "go small! go to govt!" well I have news...govt and small law jobs are not easy to come by, especially if you're not in a large govt market like NY or DC. Small law doesn't trust that anyone coming from a mid- or big-law background will stick around once the economy picks up, no matter how convincing your argument may be to the contrary.

It's tough all around, and non-big law is just as cutthroat and unforgiving. Sad but true.

I am convinced the ABA has GOT to do something about the lawyers coming out of bottom-tier law schools. I say this not as an elitist (only T25 here, and middle of the pack at that (yet actually doing very well right now)) but out of several legitimate concerns.

First is the near-unethical law school business model that everyone mentions: getting kids to go to law school with promises of big bucks only to leave them high and dry with massive amounts of debt. Lay people (I was one of them) don't understand the differences in law schools and how they affect your job prospects. Mom and Pop are just so proud you got in, they don't know the difference between Vanderbilt and John Marshall. I see now that most (not all) people who go to below T50 rank schools are pretty screwed. So are people who go to T50+ schools and end up not at the top of their class (although they are the ones more qualified to fill the DA/etc positions than the kids who went to the lower tier schools, IMO). So yes, ABA needs to stop accrediting these money-grubbing schools that contribute to the oversupply of attorneys and smash the hopes and dreams of thousands of intelligent people who think they have it made just because they got into a law school and don't realize how the debt will crush them.

But the second issue is the quality of attorneys that come out of the lower tier schools. (I'm not talking about intellectual elitism here, I'm talking about work-product). I am a second year and I have been recently re-doing the work of one of our client's former attorneys (now a solo 8 years out of law school) who went to a 4th tier law school. His/her work was so bad it cost our individual client upwards of seven figures. (it is only through some very lucky connections that this attorney did not get disbarred for malpractice). The sheer incompetency of this attorney overwhelms and angers me. His/her work is worse than that of a first year law student and he regularly misses deadlines and fails to return calls. Clients have no idea, he/she routinely obtains sub-optimal results for his/her clients as the result of pure laziness, and of course he/she blames everyone under the sun except himself/herself. He/she is a danger to the general public and I can only assume there are many, many more attorneys are out there just like this. If a fourth tier law school was the best you could get into (and you stayed there), you either aren't that bright, aren't that hard working, or some combination of the two. This is a huge red flag, ABA! These people should not be holding themselves out as attorneys to the general public. ABA needs to do some serious investigation into the practices of attorneys from certain schools (maybe after being tipped-off by malpractice complaint rates) and SHUT SCHOOLS DOWN that turn out bad attorneys. Does any one know if this happens? Am I the only one that thinks this makes sense?

The ship be sinking...

92,

I think you may have the ABA confused with the Bar Association. It's a difficult issue. In Texas we have tried electing them to the judiciary, but that hasn't worked out perfectly either.

92 - you clearly have the maturity, experience and understanding of a second year, and it is too bad you don't have the good sense to shut up and do your doc review instead of spewing your ignorance on this blog. Hopefully, a few more years of practice will make you understand that it is all about the individual and not about the law school. In your career you will meet T-14 grads who are astonishingly incompetent, and tier 4 grads who will kick your butt in court or across the negotiation table.

Once you have landed your first job, law school means shit and all that matters is what you accomplish in the office. So the fact that you're a T-25 grad does not make you special or entitled, only a bigger douchebag.

- Tier 4 biglaw senior associate.

No. 10. We're in the process of setting up a web site for support staff from BigLaw firms. Support staff are American citizens who have contributed to the U.S. economy for years, paying taxes, being consumers, working, spending money on vacations, meals at restaurants, catering halls for family events, raised children who are assets to American society. Come off your high horse, elitist position and get into the real world.

95, I predicted a backlash like yours. I'm not saying that every person who comes out of a Tier 4 is incompetent. I'm sure there are incompetent attorneys that come out of Harvard and kick-ass attorneys that come out of New England. My point is that the oversupply of attorneys in this market is not the only thing we should be worried about. Approving every law school that is just trying to make a buck by selling unrealistic dreams also lets loose some pretty poorly trained attorneys on the general public.

As I said, I'm already working, so not in law school as you imply. The maturity of your posts suggests that you are likely still are, however. Best of luck to you.

-92.

95: can you say inferiority complex?

95 is the attorney who did the shoddy work 92 was talking about.

92 - you did doc review in law school?

Also, your call to the ABA seems misplaced as the state bar, not the ABA, regulates who can practice law. If you are concerned about the quality of practicing attorneys, shouldn't you petition the state bar for more stringent admission requirements rather than bitching about the law school they graduated from?

100, No, I didn't do doc review in law school (that would be weird, unless you were somehow doing it under the third year practice act? Interesting.), and in fact I've never done it. I've been very busy with some pretty substantive stuff since nearly the beginning of my employment. Thanks for your concern, however my day to day activities were not really the main assertion of my post.

I think you have a good point concerning the state bar, and I support that approach as well. However, as we all know, bar passage isn't really that hard, and not really a solid indicator of what kind of lawyer someone will be. The ABA, however, approves and accredits law schools, which is what I was originally talking about. Check it out: http://www.abanet.org/legaled/approvedlawschools/approved.html

My point was simply to convey a personal story about an attorney who lacked many skills that a lawyer needs: he/she could not write, couldnt research or bluebook (and also cited overturned/overruled cases with regularity), regularly missed deadlines, and did clients irreparable harm. In conveying this story I do not also assert that I am perfect, however I think any attorney who is concerned with our reputation and with the well-being of clients would be disturbed if they had come across the same thing. I am sure you are right that fixing this problem is a multi-faceted approach, however I think examining the quality of lawyers that come out of the bottom of the pack would benefit the legal community as a whole. It is my understanding that in medicine, med schools are much more closely scrutinized/regulated. Just my two cents.

23 here, FWIW, i went to a T3 school, graduated middle of the road, practices for a small firm for a year (worked during school), used my connections and lateraled to a v20. The fact that so many t3-4 grads actually pass the bar says something about the Board of Bar Examiners and the exam itself. At the risk of getting into the LSAT & Bar debate and whether or not doing well on #1 is an indicator that you'll pass #2 and be a capable atty...perhaps the admissions process needs to be reinvented? My LSAT scores were lacking (clearly, as i attended a T3), I gained practical skills during law school, took classes that interested me, worked for a solo who threw me to the wolves (did not review docs) and worked the game. I passed the bar on my first try and here i am.

Interesting comments here - espcially the backlash against P.E. I think that some of it (the backlash) comes form the fact that P.E. has not drank the Obama kool aid.

One poster even refers that PE is somehow racist. Sad that a person cannot even make a comment about an administration's economic policy without being called racist. Very sad and very scary.

Maybe that poster is in the New Black Panter Party.

Interesting comments here - espcially the backlash against P.E. I think that some of it (the backlash) comes form the fact that P.E. has not drank the Obama kool aid.

One poster even refers that PE is somehow racist. Sad that a person cannot even make a comment about an administration's economic policy without being called racist. Very sad and very scary.

Maybe that poster is in the New Black Panter Party.

95, hope you have a book or a "rabbi" looking out for you. Otherwise...

51 ("PE"), 56, etc., "P.E.'s" postings routinely "kill" threads by diverting them into off topic nonsense or even rhumors about "P.E.'s" identity, "P.E.'s" political views (whether someone called P.E. a "racist" on threads other than this one).

Please read 24's comment and excercise some self restraint before posting comments designed to derail the discussion. This is intended as a polite suggestion.

This was an informative and [for the most part] civil discussion. Based upon the some comments that appear to be credible, it appears that unless conditions improve drastically and immediately, entire firms (nonetheless pracctice groups), will continue to implode. Finding refuge as in house counsel or with government and even non-profits is already more difficult than at any other time. Nor are political discussions (usually comments criticizing Obama for "causing" this crisis helpful or even credible).

A comment by a D.C. area government lawyer on another thread describing an avalanche of partners and senior associates who have stellar credentials and experience directly related to the job openings speaks volumes.

Thanks to [almost all] who contributed.

51 ("PE"), 56, etc., "P.E.'s" postings routinely "kill" threads by diverting them into off topic nonsense or even rhumors about "P.E.'s" identity, "P.E.'s" political views (whether someone called P.E. a "racist" on threads other than this one).

Please read 24's comment and excercise some self restraint before posting comments designed to derail the discussion. This is intended as a polite suggestion.

This was an informative and [for the most part] civil discussion. Based upon the some comments that appear to be credible, it appears that unless conditions improve drastically and immediately, entire firms (nonetheless pracctice groups), will continue to implode. Finding refuge as in house counsel or with government and even non-profits is already more difficult than at any other time. Nor are political discussions (usually comments criticizing Obama for "causing" this crisis helpful or even credible).

A comment by a D.C. area government lawyer on another thread describing an avalanche of partners and senior associates who have stellar credentials and experience directly related to the job openings speaks volumes.

Thanks to [almost all] who contributed.

Can we talk about the Clifford Chance lolita and vampire girl again? That was fun.