Kash, this was better than every post made yesterday.

2=kash

CravaTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTh

Bernie gonna get 25.

Semper Five.

MysTTTal

Also, where is Karen?

What is Elie's maiden name?

LaTTT

Congrats to Ross Mitchell for sticking it to the MA Bar!

A law degree as a ticket to some other career?

Sheesh, when are these idiots going to stop propagating that lie.

First of all, practically no companies give a shit about a law degree for non-legal jobs. None. HR doesn't see a resume with a law degree and say "a JD, awesome, we gotta interview them for this [sales], [analyst], [project management], [finance], [enter any non-legal job]"

It's more like "This guy has a JD, why isn't he practicing law...he must be stupid"

Companies don't give a shit, plain and simple...else if they did, companies would be actively recruiting at law schools for non-legal jobs...and guess what, they don't. Compare that to companies that recruit at MBA schools or the general undergrad population, which is where companies actively recruit for non-legal jobs.

Second, to be an Entrepreneur, one doesn't need a shitty JD. Hell, one doesn't even need to graduate college. It is pointless to waste three years of one's life in law school and the money if they already decided they are going to be an entrepreneur. It seems an MBA would be cheaper and more relevant or even just an undergrad finance/business/accounting/engineering degree.

And what really grind's my gears about asshats that pontificate how awesome a JD "open's doors' to alternative careers is that said asshats usually already had a successful legal career that they could actually parlay into something else.

These said pontificating asshats have no clue that the people really needing jobs are the one's with little or no legal experiences, such as recent grads.

What a lame article that was...

Need more articles it's 9:30 and MysTTTal isn't even awake.

I know all the east coast d-bags think oil and gas law is for rednecks, but this is huge news that David Asmus left Baker Botts for Morgan Lewis. He is the main reason that Baker Botts has such a high ranking for oil and gas and energy law. He is seen as the best oil and gas lawyer in the country, and many think in the world. HUGE loss for Baker Botts. He also took some people with him.

Comment removed by moderator.

10 - That's not true at all!

When I was graduating I found lots of jobs that listed a J.D. as "preferred" rather than required.

Most of them were in the claims division of AIG.

They might be still hiring. Go and see.

I give credit to Ross Mitchell, who outsmarted the system and proved to be more financially saavy than most of you louts that paid over $150K for your worthless law degree. Although Ross's law degree is just as worthless as yours, he paid substantially less for his.

PE = Elie

12 nailed it.

Further evidence that the BB ship be sinking.

Plenty of California lawyers graduated from non-ABA schools. The only interesting thing about R. Mitchell's case is that he got Mass to admit him. He was admitted in California some time ago.

I am pretty shocked by Posner's copyright suggestions in the linked blog post. He's usually quite progressive on copyright matters, but he's WAY off the mark here. Using copyright law to proscribe the "paraphrasing" of news content???? Good grief....

Take aways from the Legal Intelligencer article:

- Job security can always be found if you are willing to start a service for lawyers looking for a job.

- Potential non-legal positions include "Head of Corporate" or "some sort of volunteer position." Hmmm.... which one of these seems more likely for the recent graduate.

- The trick to being hired by non-lawyers is to "get over yourself." Also, "Be willing to scale back expectations." I'm guessing that can only mean you should start planning now for your life after defaulting on your student loans.

- Biggest eye opener: 70% of all legal work can be performed by non-lawyers.

So, yes Virginia, your law degree really was a total waste of time and money. Cheerio!

Take aways from the Legal Intelligencer article:

- Job security can always be found if you are willing to start a service for lawyers looking for a job.

- Potential non-legal positions include "Head of Corporate" or "some sort of volunteer position." Hmmm.... which one of these seems more likely for the recent graduate.

- The trick to being hired by non-lawyers is to "get over yourself." Also, "Be willing to scale back expectations." I'm guessing that can only mean you should start planning now for your life after defaulting on your student loans.

- Biggest eye opener: 70% of all legal work can be performed by non-lawyers.

So, yes Virginia, your law degree really was a total waste of time and money. Cheerio!

"And what really grind's my gears about asshats that pontificate how awesome a JD "open's doors' to alternative careers is that said asshats usually already had a successful legal career that they could actually parlay into something else.

These said pontificating asshats have no clue that the people really needing jobs are the one's with little or no legal experiences, such as recent grads."

Yes. This is it exactly.

I wish greivous bodily harm to the writer of every article that says, "Former lawyer so and so wanted to transition out of law, and now owns the Yankees!"

There are a number of stories of people who went into law, got rich, and then did something more rewarding with their lives. The problem is... NOW NON-LAWYERS CAN DO LEGAL WORK FOR A LOT LESS MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!

Recent graduates are facing a very different world. Law is no longer a way to make money. It is now a death trap of spiraling student loan debt, shrinking salaries, and reduced partner hiring. Thanks ABA.

19 -

I had the same reaction. That article may be the single dumbest thing Posner has ever written.

If non-lawyers can do legal work, then it's over, isn't it? Those of us who actually went six figures in debt to attend law school have paid too much to become part of something that is no longer a monopoly.

Now anyone can get on-the-job experience and do my job, for less.

What. The. Hell.

Law schools need to band together and fight the ABA rulings that make it ok for 70% of legal work, according to the article, to be performed by non-lawyers.

If non-lawyers can practice law for an ok salary, and lawyers have to pay student loans out of that same ok salary, then why in the hell would anyone waste money on law school?

The AMA is just smarter than we are guys. Or more willing to put the good of the group ahead of individual greed.

Law schools need to band together and fight the ABA rulings that make it ok for 70% of legal work, according to the article, to be performed by non-lawyers.

If non-lawyers can practice law for an ok salary, and lawyers have to pay student loans out of that same ok salary, then why in the hell would anyone waste money on law school?

The AMA is just smarter than we are guys. Or more willing to put the good of the group ahead of individual greed.

25/26, if the work you can do can be done just as well by a non-lawyer, that might be a reflection of your own abilities. You don't see MBAs complaining about how the Chamber of Commerce should restrict corporate managerial positions to only MBA-holders, because good MBAs have no problems competing with non-MBAs despite the MBAs' larger loans.

Nurse practitioners can do an increasing amount of doctor work. People still hire doctors because they have actual helpful skills and are not coasting on their professional monopoly. Medical students took useful classes instead of stuff like "Medicine and Existentialism" or "Critical Feminist Medicine Studies."

I don't actually think the work I do can be done as well by non-lawyers. I think the ABA is using competition for jobs to make more money for people who have been in law longer, at the expense of people who wanted to enter the profession.

The ABA has deprofessionalized the entire field, and I'm really, really pissed. So don't give me some lecture on capitalism. Doctors wouldn't be excited to see "nurse practitioners" take over surgery, either.

I don't actually think the work I do can be done as well by non-lawyers. I think the ABA is using competition for jobs to make more money for people who have been in law longer, at the expense of people who wanted to enter the profession.

The ABA has deprofessionalized the entire field, and I'm really, really pissed. So don't give me some lecture on capitalism. Doctors wouldn't be excited to see "nurse practitioners" take over surgery, either.

Actually, don't lecture me on capitalist principles at all, because you don't seem to know what you're talking about in medecine, law, or economics.

If nurse practitioners flood the field, then doctors will have to either accept nurse practitioner salaries or compete for spots in more specialized fields, which requires more money and time for training. So nurse practitioners are not just some boon for everyone, they are a cost for people who have already invested in a medical degree. Also, since they have less training, they can do less. At least the AMA restricts nurse practitioners to a limited role, based on their limited training.

Also, you are completely off base about the market for MBAs. It only counts at the later stages of your career. It allows you to go higher, but it doesn't get you in the door.

Finally, you need to read what Adam Smith actually said about competition. It's not always a good thing, and he never claimed it was. Histheories have been coopted by people who want to pay starvation wages to grade school children in undeveloped countries.

Actually, don't lecture me on capitalist principles at all, because you don't seem to know what you're talking about in medecine, law, or economics.

If nurse practitioners flood the field, then doctors will have to either accept nurse practitioner salaries or compete for spots in more specialized fields, which requires more money and time for training. So nurse practitioners are not just some boon for everyone, they are a cost for people who have already invested in a medical degree. Also, since they have less training, they can do less. At least the AMA restricts nurse practitioners to a limited role, based on their limited training.

Also, you are completely off base about the market for MBAs. It only counts at the later stages of your career. It allows you to go higher, but it doesn't get you in the door.

Finally, you need to read what Adam Smith actually said about competition. It's not always a good thing, and he never claimed it was. Histheories have been perverted by people who want to pay starvation wages to grade school children in undeveloped countries.

LOL at new law school grads --they is gonna be committing suicide at unprecedented rates. No jobs. No paying clients. LOL. Kill self!

The legal market is saturated with lawyers - brilliant and not - and it is going through a market adjustment equivalent to the real estate market. This is a simple economic phase in a capitalist society - it simply has never effected the legal market before.

There is a wide variety of run-of-the-mill law that can be accomplished by paralegals and other non-lawyers, as well as SOFTWARE developed by lawyers to undercut lawyers. The economic downturn is just a catalyst - many firms were already considering moving from a "fee-for-service" pricing model to a "fee-for-product" model for different practice groups (consider product pricing in estates, service pricing in litigation.)

Video killed the radio store. The Internet is killing a variety of different industries - video/audio for purchase, printed news media, as well as legal.
Be creative and you'll still make money - just not by sitting in an office and waiting for the clients to come to you!

Precedent setting law will still require well-educated, sharp legal minds. If you have one and can get out of the legal sausage-mill you'll make the big bucks you aimed for. If you develop a software based legal document sausage-mill, you'll make the big bucks you aimed for.

As for using your JD in non-JD jobs - HR reps consider it a liability. Lawyers want to debate, and they will pick a fight for the glory of the win. You think HR really wants that type of personality, educated with a JD, sitting in a desk-jockey position? How long before a JD starts examining internal procedures and whistle blowing in order to make their bones?

Stick to legal, just be creative and develop the right side of your brain. Think outside the Lexus Library Labyrinth (isn't that the "3L"???) in which you have become entrenched.

"Be creative and you'll still make money - just not by sitting in an office and waiting for the clients to come to you! "

Please die.

What should a recent graduate, be doing, CREATIVELY, to make money? More work than someone in India? Or faster work than someone in India? Because entry level legal work has always been about doing crap work. If that crap work is now shifted to India, there isn't work for entry level lawyers.

You are an asshole with a semester of econ and no logical reasoning skills whatsoever. In other words, a 1-L. Now go do the reading for the career that won't be there when you graduate.

"Stick to legal, just be creative and develop the right side of your brain. "

You really have no concept of the legal field at all, do you?

What do you think we're going to do, exactly? Compose a sonata to a brief?

Do you really know anyone, anywhere, willing to pay top dollar for "creativity" to a lawyer, any lawyer at all, let alone a recent graduate, or a 3rd year associate! This is mind boggling in its stupidity.

34 should move to India to get a paying job, as clearly their left-brain is on steriods while their right-brain suffers from malnutrition.

Anyone with real BUISNESS experience with legal software is aware of the industry boom in a variety of fronts. Lawyers can be replaced with software programs if the programs are "smart" enough to ask the user the right questions. You think programmers are quipped to figure that out?

This is where the industry is going, whether 34 has the technical or cognative skills to envision it or not....

"This is where the industry is going, whether 34 has the technical or cognative skills to envision it or not.... "

I'm 34, and I happen to agree with you. The difference between us is that I already paid more than six figures to be trained to practice law, and I am now being replaced by a computer.

If you think that's funny, go ahead and laugh. But for the record, I got my law degree at a time when law could not be outsourced or practiced by computers, BECAUSE IT WAS ILLEGAL FOR NONLAWYERS TO PRACTICE LAW.

The computers aren't taking over because of the grand forward march of progress. The computers are taking over because the ABA changed the rules on everyone.

35 - you missed the opening salvo: top dollar is no longer an option!

33 is dead on. If the people you describe are looking for employment, they need can pull a Bill Gates maneuver. THAT's the level of creativity under discussion, asshole!

You're right 38 - why didn't I just start my own multibillion dollar corporation already?

I guess I'm just some lazy bum who took a "job" in order to pay off my "loans." What kind of inside-the-box thinking is that?

I’m pleased that you concur.

Please describe how you are different than any other human being who was educated, trained, or developed skills by experience in an industry that became saturated or automated? You want retraining in a new industry? You want out-placement services? You want pity?

The basic question is "what can you do now". You want to fight the ABA, g’head. Waste of time. I recommend that you find a way to utilize your current skills in the changing industry – then you are surfing the wave. If you waiting for the industry to pick up the wave will crash on your head and you'll be sucked out by the undertow.

Maybe to India.

#12:

David Asmus' move is a huge loss for Baker Botts, but I take issue with your statement that he is "seen as the best oil and gas lawyer in the country, and many think in the world."

Perhaps he is one of the top 10 oil and gas lawyers, but to say that he is "the best" is a bit too strong. There are many other oil and gas lawyers who have as much (or more) experience than Asmus does with regard to _pure_ oil and gas work.

"Precedent setting law will still require well-educated, sharp legal minds. If you have one and can get out of the legal sausage-mill you'll make the big bucks you aimed for. If you develop a software based legal document sausage-mill, you'll make the big bucks you aimed for. "

Creating legal software to allow people not to hire lawyers is called "exploiting a market inefficiency."

The problem is that it then creates a greater market inefficiency. Like 40,000 other people last year, I spent three years of my life and went six figures into debt learning how to be a lawyer.

So now, thanks to the ABA, we have one asshole with a computer program making money, at the expense of at least 40,000 people who thought they could be part of a real profession. And another asshole with an outsourcing business making a fortune in another country, while American lawyers go broke, which is not good for the tax base. Not good at all.

Your scenario is not "market forces at work." Your scenario is what happens when a monopoly deliberately decides to use it's power to hurt smaller fish in the market, while benefitting a couple bigger fish.

"Please describe how you are different than any other human being who was educated, trained, or developed skills by experience in an industry that became saturated or automated? You want retraining in a new industry? You want out-placement services? You want pity?"

I really hate libertarians.

The difference between a lawyer and someone trained in an obscelecent skill is that, until recently, the ABA did not allow anyone but a law-school trained lawyer to practice law.

My skills didn't become obsolete. I didn't practice three years to make buggy whips, only to find out no one wants buggy whips any longer. People still want legal services, and if anything, demand is higher.

THE ONLY THING THAT HAS CHANGED IS MY ABILITY TO CHARGE FOR MY EXPERTISE.

The ABA just suddenly decided not to require a barrier to entry, after I'd spent the time and money required to join the profession.

BUT IT'S STILL THE SAME PROFESSION YOU DINGDONG.

Hasn't anyone here had to call a foreign-based customer service center? Did you enjoy that experience? Did it make you think, "Ahhhh... outsourcing brings nothing but benefit to the consumer, who pays siginificantly less for quality service!"

I pay about the same for phone service and bank service as I did 15 years ago. The companies who provide those services made a lot of money, none of which was passed on to me, the consumer. And now my tax dollars are now going to an insane deficit required to provide services to the unemployed, the underemployed, and the uninsured. Yay "competition."

The scenario is "moving to a global economy."

The example was provided to demonstrate the ability to think creatively regarding career choices. Too much of a stretch I suppose. Try this: You think if you had skills in international law you 'd be out of a job? You think that you can only "practice law" if you are hired at top dollar by a Vault firm?

I empathize with you. The downturn has effected me as well. But it can't be argued away, no matter how much vigor and angst you apply to your ranting.

I ask again...what are you going to DO? You have to think differently - it's the only real option.

"Try this: You think if you had skills in international law you 'd be out of a job? You think that you can only "practice law" if you are hired at top dollar by a Vault firm?"

Um, yes. I think international lawyers will be paid less, making the investment pointless.

And no, I don't think the only way to practice law is to be hired at top dollar by a Vault fim.

I think the ABA decision is a disaster for consumers, lawyers, and our economy. It will increase costs, decrease quality, and devastate what was once one of the highest paying professions. For nothing.

There was a reason why only a licensed lawyer was allowed to practice law. That requirement was put in place so that there would be accountability. Right now, a lawyer who breaks confidentiality, or doesn't serve the client's best interest, has to answer to the bar. As penalty, he or she must give up his license in a profitable profession. That's a pretty big deal.

After this ruling takes effect, the jackass in the call center can just shrug.

This is a perfect example of Morgan Lewis selling out thier own for the sake of profit. The firm has hired more than 20 new partners (admittedly, many of whom have self sufficient books of business) and their associates this year, while laying off more than fifty associates in March. Associates in the NY office have quietly been warned to get thier resumes ready for pre-July layoffs. Junior (non-equity) partners and of counsels are also being slashed. Class of 2011 and beyond should take note. This firm will sacrifice it's own to increase it's PPP and reputation. If you really want to be a partner at Morgan Lewis (NY or elsewhere) go into the government or work for another firm and lateral, because you have no chance of being promoted to partnership from inside.

-MLB Ass. (happily on my way out the door)

43: that left brain is really locked up.

In medicine, routine tasks are assigned to para-professionals. You think this happened because the AMA decided it was a good idea, or because Doctors priced themselves out of the market for giving flue shots, or because high-tech procedures were developed and doctors wanted to pursue that.

B and C. The AMA responded to where the industry was leading. So did the ABA.

The law is a mature industry now. Your skills did not become obsolete, they became commonplace.

This is a perfect example of Morgan Lewis selling out thier own for the sake of profit. The firm has hired more than 20 new partners (admittedly, many of whom have self sufficient books of business) and their associates this year, while laying off more than fifty associates in March. Associates in the NY office have quietly been warned to get thier resumes ready for pre-July layoffs. Junior (non-equity) partners and of counsels are also being slashed. Class of 2011 and beyond should take note. This firm will sacrifice it's own to increase it's PPP and reputation. If you really want to be a partner at Morgan Lewis (NY or elsewhere) go into the government or work for another firm and lateral, because you have no chance of being promoted to partnership from inside.

-MLB Ass. (happily on my way out the door)

What am I going to DO?

According to you I could join an Indian call center., where I'm sure they'd love to pay a lot of money for a non-Indian-speaking American lawyer, rather than a translation of BarBri.

Or I could write a computer program that makes it possible for anyone with decent typing skills to represent himself. in whatever court-system-clogging jackassery he so desires.

Or, I could go into business for myself, selling job search "services" to unemployed lawyers.

All of these options are a stop gap at best. Sooner or later India will hire only Indians. International law firms will hire only international, untrained, "lawyers." All the computer programs will have been written. And all the unemployed lawyers will have given up.

Honestly, I guess I'm going to try find something to do that doesn't involve screwing over everyone who joined a profession I respected. And I'm going to move overseas. Lawyers used to be the people who protected the American way of life. The US legal system was a marvel to the rest of the world.

So I'll mourn that, and then I'll leave to teach English in Thailand for a while or something.

"B and C. The AMA responded to where the industry was leading. So did the ABA."

You have no concept of what the legal system IS, and it' s really pissing me off.

Lawyers protect the rule of law. Even when we're doing the crap work. Hell, ESPECIALLY, when we're doing the crap work, because ONLY LAWYERS CAN DO IT.

You are not suggesting creativity, you are suggesting unaccountability. There's a big difference.

Flu shot? FLU SHOT?

FLU SHOT MY ASS!!!!!!

I write a crap brief for a non-lawyer because I know what our system is, and how to protect the non-lawyer's rights working within that system. That's why I'm the one who gets to write the brief, and not you!

More coherently. There is a really big difference between a flu shot and representation on a small legal matter.

Medecine provides an important service, but our country exists because of respect for the law. Lawyers pay for training, and they pay hundreds of dollars in bar association dues every year because have to monitor our profession. Unmonitored, unaccountable people practicing law is a very big deal.

I actually LIKE you 46, I just disagree with your rather global statements. I have a grasp of where the legal system is GOING, and you don't, and THAT'S what is pissing you off.

Expansion, contraction, all the natural flow of things. Yes, the legal industry will be "deregulated" somewhat by the ABA ruling. It will be re-regulated over time. Maybe you'll represent some of the injured parties to make that happen.

Individuals are free to create their own legal documents without the aid of a legal professional. It may not been advisable, but it isn’t ILLEGAL. The reason to seek out a lawyer is not because of a legal requirement, but because of their expertise. That will still be the case, just not to the level that supports the number, and expense, of the current legal community.

And take a pill. Accountability is a self-regulated virtue more associated with ethics than legality. There are crap lawyers out there already, manipulating the system and walking the tightrope of legality. Doctors as well. What's the ABA doing about that?

The only viable point is that the legal industry is changing. Not debatable. If you wanna pay your bills, you have to work in the NEW reality. You've got your Irish up over this, why not create a service to track legal credentials (doctors have that) or one to track performance of legal documents created by non-lawyer legal services? THERE are some creative ideas to use your skills in the new evolution. Big buck to be made there, sweetie!

I'm done. I've tried cerebral resuscitation on the right side of your brain for an hour - its DOA and I'm calling it.

"I have a grasp of where the legal system is GOING, and you don't, and THAT'S what is pissing you off."

No. What's pissing me off is that you want to make money off of taking the legal system somewhere I don't think it should go.

"I have a grasp of where the legal system is GOING, and you don't, and THAT'S what is pissing you off."

No, what's pissing me off is people like you, who want to make money dismantling the legal profession.

I don't think the legal profession should go in this direction. You, on the other hand, think it shows brilliant business acument to rifle through the pockets of the recently deceased corpse of the legal profession.

That's the difference between us. I'm a professional, and you're a worm.

We both see the exact same consequences from the ABA ruling, but I care about the effect on the country and you think this is your chance to be Bill Gates. Go ahead. I'm sure no other out of work lawyer had the same "brilliant" idea to apply to India or write a clunky computer program. Do you really think anyone actually wins a race to the bottom? Haven't you ever seen an industry go through lay offs and "globalization" before?

"I have a grasp of where the legal system is GOING, and you don't, and THAT'S what is pissing you off."

No, what's pissing me off is people like you, who want to make money dismantling the legal profession.

I don't think the legal profession should go in this direction. You, on the other hand, think it shows brilliant business acument to rifle through the pockets of the recently deceased corpse of the legal profession.

That's the difference between us. I'm a professional, and you're a worm.

We both see the exact same consequences from the ABA ruling, but I care about the effect on the country and you think this is your chance to be Bill Gates. Go ahead. I'm sure no other out of work lawyer had the same "brilliant" idea to apply to India or write a clunky computer program. Do you really think anyone actually wins a race to the bottom? Haven't you ever seen an industry go through lay offs and "globalization" before?

11=mofo partner

AWWW! Really kinda sweet, if you think about it.

The legal system is evolving of it's own accord, and the ABA isn’t shaping the industry, it is responding to it. I was suggesting that you ride the wave instead of getting overtaken. Top dollar compensation as your requirement; I was suggesting that there are unique opportunities, and offered software development as ONE (not the only) option.

End of re-cap.

If you want to rail against the ABA, then make money REGULATING where it is going, and be part of the framing the change. Framers 2.0. Lobby on Washington for the legal industry. You want more creative ideas I can probably give you 50.

But darlin, you really can't STOP where it is going. And the clock is ticking and the bills are coming due.

Due, dew, do. Watcha gonna DO? When HR comes for YOU?

Will you two get a room and STFU??

Who has time to be a lawyer these days? I only ask because, if the comment threads on ATL are any indication, being a skilled lawyer apparently means spending the bulk of your day commenting on stories and writing extended replies to others' extended replies. Time to pad the billables?

"The only viable point is that the legal industry is changing."

No. The ABA changed the rule which prevented non-lawyers from practicing law.

Does anyone have any "creative" ideas which would also allow me to make my loan payments?

Because I've already looked into stripping, loan sharking, and bank robbery. And all of them pay less than I need.

In fact, does anyone know anyone who makes enough to afford Sallie Mae payments? Who isn't a lawyer practicing law? (Or a doctor)>

Because I'd love to believe all I need is to, "just get creative about my FUTURE."

But I've done the math.

$70k a year gives me about $3,000 take home pay. If $2000 a month goes to dear Sallie Mae, then that leaves $1000 a month to live on. Not awful, but not practical for NYC, DC, or anywhere in California.

Then, there's that little matter of finding anything, legal or non, that pays $70k a year, and allows steady monthly income, because the first time you make a late payment, your interest goes through the roof, plus penalties and fees.

New lawyers are standing on a steep, wet roof, wearing Crisco shoes. Creativity has nothing to do with it.

"why not create a service to track legal credentials (doctors have that) or one to track performance of legal documents created by non-lawyer legal services"

Why not? Off the top of my head, I'd have to say it's because I spent three years learning how to be a lawyer, instead of how to run a blog. Also, because I know the profit structure of this kind of website, and it's not something that's going to pay my student loans ever.

Or, maybe, because the only one who's going to profit from that business is the lawyer who gets to sue it into the ground - and he's been practicing 20 years already.

"Haven't you ever seen an industry go through lay offs and "globalization" before?"

Many. And if you think that Toyota, Nissan, and Subaru still manufacture the cheap crap they exported to the US in the beginning of THAT market globalization, you're insane. Or just too young to remember.

The Lexus of the legal world will follow the same path as the Lexus of the auto world - no doubt about it. The legal industry manufactures words, and it will be inundated with cheap, sub-standard, service providers that copy and paste the sweat from your brow right off the internet.

And then it will get better.

You think your only role is to represent clients who take advantage of that? If you're lucky, you'll be reviewing their merger contracts in 10 years when the stuff skyrockets like Google on steroids.

"The Lexus of the legal world will follow the same path as the Lexus of the auto world - no doubt about it."

You have no concept of what a lawyer does. A partner can charge $900 an hour because he has experience and contacts that most lawyers will not be able to get.

Everyone else did the lower work. The thing is, these lower operations people still had to be lawyers because everyone who practices in the legal system can influence the law, which shapes lives, and because the licensing system allows clients some recourse against bad lawyers.

The only thing that has changed is:

1) Non-lawyers can now practice the nuts and bolts of law.

2) Non-partners can no longer make a living.

These are not good developments. And your moronic car analogies only reveal your ignorance.

Lawyers do not produce a product. We are not widget manufacturers. And you are not Adam Smith.

Or were you saying that non-lawyers in India produce crap now, but eventually they'll be better motion writers than lawyers here?

I don't think non-citizens will ever have much of an interest in protecting the country's legal system. I don't think non-lawyers will ever have much accountability to clients. And I really, really hate it when people think my profession is equivalent to manufacturing.

It's a profession. We just outsourced a PROFESSION. Only a total jackass would think, "Yay now we all get cheaper motions!"

That's really not how it works.

Personal attacks on one's opponent are an act of desperation, and an indication of low EQ.  Perhaps the stress of not knowing if you have a job is really getting to you.  Your statement carries some weight, though, and you are right, the quip about the Lex- is silly.   I use my right brain regularly, and I don't mind failed attempts at humor.  I'll stick to the medical industry - is a better parallel. 
 
Of course you produce a product.  A legal document of any type is a product. It's conceptually tangible, it's scrutable, it can be evaluated using a variety of methods, and it functions as a legal instrument.  Doctors produce products as well - at the very least patient medical records documenting advice are the product.  It's ALL products - although you prefer to refer to it as a service - as all verbal interaction is required to be followed up in writing, and the document is the product.  You wanna assign something more noble to it, fine.  It's WORDS strung together for endless interpretation. 
 
Yes, the "nuts and bolts" of law is at issue, but you still cling to the idea that the ABA took the low road in the decision to deregulate.  Why would lawyers continue their membership in an association that has been completely neutrailzed by it's own action? T-H-I-N-K!!!! Reverse your argument  - how would you defend the decision? What possible motivation could there be?  Do you really believe that the ABA intends to eroded the US legal system???  Seems a little personal, don't you think?  Yes, it changes things right now - namely your career path.  Bad luck for you...
 
RIGHT BRAIN RIGHT BRAIN RIGHT BRAIN!
 
Consider this: 
 
The ability to justify that $900/hour (um, BTW, Senator Mitchell didn't bill that, so SHUT UP!) in the changing economy, and where lawyers are less venerated than they wish to believe, is dependent on the ability to establish a canvass between the "nuts and bolts" of law, and the skills and assets you indicate a partner possesses.
 
Did it ever occur to your that the ABA is actually securing your future for you, by "letting go" of the easy stuff in order to split the herd and distinguish between the application of law and the utilization of legal concepts?  Too fine a delineation for you? Here's the parallel – the medical profession where, over the last 10 years the typical, easy, every day medical diagnoses and administration of drugs and scripts may be performed by a para-professional.  Specialists are called in for the less routine.  Why does that throw you for a loop?  Because you can't see your way down the path to the next phase, where paralegals and non-lawyers play a larger role in keeping the knucklehead stuff off your desk so you can focus on the interesting, ground breaking cases? 

The ABA is creating a legal caste system, and they can't give you the Cliff notes to get you up to speed on why. How exactly would that read???”Mediocre shysters to the left, elitist thinkers with IQ's over 150 to the right?” Or are you just worried on which side you will fall??? And why do you think there is some work force of para-whosits waiting to steal your job from you? “Oh, yeah, lemme jump right in to the legal market because there's a void to fill!” JEEZ! You don't want to be working for the people who will avail themselves of cheap legal assistance, so what do you CARE??? Eventually para-professionals in the legal profession will create their own regulating agency, with standards to meet, just like the ABA. The buyer in the marketplace will need to be sure they select appropriately credentialed professionals. Your parallel to a legal-call center in India is more moronic that my auto industry analagy.
 
REMINDER:  Law school didn't teach you to be a lawyer, it taught you the law and how to think  (or was supposed to).  Are you really completely flummoxed now that your career target has moved???  Better finance a 4th year...

Thanks for the exchange- really, my left brain needed the exercise. YAWN! But that's enough for me!

" the medical profession where, over the last 10 years the typical, easy, every day medical diagnoses and administration of drugs and scripts may be performed by a para-professional. "

Doctors have been losing money during the past decades. I know several who advise against it as a career, because you will go broke.

You are just wrong. The legal profession does produce some product, but I don't think it's ok to outsource that product to non-lawyers. Particularly if it's going to the same people who run my phone company's customer service.

As for the ABA's motivation, I would guess it's because a few people will be able to cut costs and pocket the difference, and those people are heavily represented in ABA leadership. I really doubt, given their history, that the ABA has some sort of brilliant strategy.

And I agree that the ABA has created a stark contrast between Haves and Have-Nots. I can also see, however, that the Haves will all be older lawyers who got there first. Ability has nothing to do with it. If reputation is all that counts, and the only way to build a reputation is to stick around for a long time doing meaningful work, then everyone else is screwed.

To go back to your idiotic car analogy, do you really think anyone who stayed in the car industry 20 years ago came out ahead in the long run? Or did they cling, fingers white with effort, to a field that was already dying. The foreign car companies hired foriegners,, or paid less in benefits and wages. The local car companies died, slowly. The people who went into HR so they could lay off others, were themselves laid off. The people who went into accounting were laid off. The people who learned Japanese were laid off. The people who were already ahead when things went bad stayed ahead, and trie to get what they could before the inevitable crash. Because that's how it works in a dying industry.

And this just shows that you are NOT in any way a lawyer: "Because you can't see your way down the path to the next phase, where paralegals and non-lawyers play a larger role in keeping the knucklehead stuff off your desk so you can focus on the interesting, ground breaking cases?

Less than 5% of all potential claims turn out to be "interesting cases," and another 2% of those cases actually make it to court.

Excuse me if I'm not particularly excited about 1 in a million odds of keeping the job I went six figures into debt to train to do. Your chirpiness is an insult to everyone who just wanted to practice law, and everyone who read more than the first chapters of his or her econ textbook.

"Law school didn't teach you to be a lawyer, it taught you the law and how to think (or was supposed to)."

Only a 1-L or a first-year dropout would say this. There is not some world of really smart lawyers thinking really hard about all the problems you may have in order to develop really arcane theories that will change the world! (Although this is what I thought my first year too).

The law moves SLOWLY. Most of the time, most of the work is very routine. You clearly think it's no problem for non-lawyers to perform the routine work, "freeing up" all the lawyers for the non-routine. This si incredibly stupid. By letting non-lawyers perform legal work:

1) You are reducing the standard of living for about 1 million people, at a time when our economy needs every high-paying job it can get.

2) You are costing the people who paid the price that until this year was required to enter the profession, while almost solely benefitting people who don't even pay taxes here. (Even the US owners of global businesses can hide their profits overseas under our current system).

3) Based on industries such as banking and telecommunications, the outsourcing of services seriously reduces both the quality and the accountability of that service. (Call AT&T if you don't believe me. Call them with any problem or concern you may have, and just see what happens)

Yes three or four people may make money off a computer program. And those people may create some low-wage jobs for non-lawyers. So fricking what? You replaced high paying jobs with low paying jobs, accountable service providers with unaccountable non-taxpayers, and you get nothing in return.

The free market isn't really free, even Mr. Smith agreed that you have to keep an eye on the overall costs to society. People like you are cheering the Titanic into the iceberg because you expect to make a killing on life jacket sales.

Again with the "where's my money" angle.

And quit complaining about your investment. The ABA proposed this model in 1995, the DOJ responded in 2002 (ya might wanna READ that - they recommended oversight that you wanna ignore to make points about outsourcing to India) - you couldn't see it coming??

You still don't get it, law school, law-yer, whatever, and your statistics on litigation prove the point - most of it is routine mass production. It's para professionals, generalists, and specialists from now on. My mistake for thinking you were aiming for into category #3 - the movers and shakers. Apparently your are rallying to carve a place at the closing table during private real estate transactions. Yes, you will have to compete with non-lawyers for business. You wanna plead the angle that is not a good law, fine, but my veteran real estate agent out maneuvered the high priced lawyer hired by the seller at MY closing, so exactly how did the "you gotta be a lawyer" BS benefit that poor SOB??? He paid more money, and still doesn't know he got screwed!

It's experience and knowledge, and yes the contacts you develop over time. Same as any other industry.

Bottom line is that the market will not bear the cost of your billable rate doing the job you do. Public outcry is rising over your $900/hour partner - remember? the one with all the experience and contacts? - who advises his buddy financiers on legal lending loopholes, then separates himself - perfectly legally - from liability by indicating "risk assessment is for the other guys at that table." Continuing to thread the needle of legal loopholes isn't going to cut it much longer. Listen up: ethicial vs. legal behavior is going to be the next revolution in the US - equivlant to the Civil Rights movement - at all levels of society. People are watching, cameras are rolling, the internet is buzzing, and change is coming... although you probably can't see that coming, either.

People always liked doctors, so they empathize with the issues they face. People don't LIKE lawyers - even the good ones. You can watch reruns of To Kill a Mockingbird all you want, that is NOT the tone in our world.

The legal caste system is the only way the ABA can think of to turn the industry around in the face of a technological boom, a down economy, and a public relations "concern" that will soon move into a "nightmare'. I didn't recommend it, so don't criticize my comprehension of econ, I'm just showing you the road you are now gonna travel.

Start walkin', your Lexus blew it's engine.

Are you so deluded that you think highly compensated Americans actually pay their fair share of taxes? Clearly you didn't do a stint in E&T during as a summer...

Your argument is the only thing that is arcane. Outsourcing anything results in cheap goods as the new competitors enter the industry - big deal! NOW who didn't finshish their econ text. Consumers have a choice to pay less for a cheaper product, or pay more for a better one. Yeah, AT&T outsourced it customer service. Bummer for all of us. But I've spoken to domesticly run call centers that are the same deal without the language barrier. You really sure this is a result of outsourcing the lower paying jobs, and not a split in society between the your "haves and have nots" of articulation and communcation, customer service skills? It ANNOYING having to deal with PEOPLE who lack these skills, and that deficiency exists in many places, not just off-shore. A large part of outsourcing is the ability to provide 24/7 support, so getting staff in diffent global timezones becomes a priority. In addition, the call center is an entry position - the GOOD folks get promoted OFF the desk! THAT's more the reason for the challenges than "they took cheap jobs". India has more genusis than any other nation, per capita. The folks on the help desks over there support a variety of products while speaking a multitude of languages. You think they aren't SKILLED??? But they have less oppurtunities so they work for less money. By the third generation, they will have build a financial base and will be sending their kids to compete for the same jobs as your grandchildren.

You need to THINK GLOBALLY, Law-yer.

But seriously - you really CAN'T cite the break-up of Ma Bell in the 80's as a BAD thing???? HOW much did you pay for the cell phone your carry? The one with the phone, itunes, video, e-mail, texting, internet capabilities, bluetooth? AT&T ALSO outsourced their R&D, MORON. You're not complaining about THAT!!! I bet you actually bragged about the deal you got!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I have a meeting - with the LAWERS - to teach them presentation skills. You're right, I'm NOT a lawyer, I'm one of the "contacts" that the partners use to teach them how to "appear" to be better people...

Good luck!

"Outsourcing anything results in cheap goods as the new competitors enter the industry - big deal! "

Outsourcing widgets is not the same as outsourcing an entire profession, and when that profession forms the basis for the rule of law - even the routine matters you think should be performed by non-lawyers - that's a big deal.

No matter how many times I say it, you'll cling to your myth of "movers and shakers." No one is going to win here. No one.

So stop telling lawyers that all they need to do is turn into vendors and salesmen. There's no money in it, and there's no future in it - because someone without the student loan costs will always be cheaper than I am.

If I'd wanted to sell crap to people, I would have done that without the loans. I wanted to be a lawyer. And no, it did not occur to me before law school to check arcane ABA rulings for the possibility that the ABA might be planning to devastate the entire profession sometime in the near future. I don't think I'm the only one who missed that.

Your inability to understand the implications of what you are saying offends me. You have no way of knowing if the non-lawyer handling your closing did a good job. You think he did, but if you thought differently, what recourse would you have had?

You completely misunderstand the meaning of the word "profession." Who cares if I now have the opportunity to sell crap for $50k a year? Unlike you I can see the options, and they're not good.

My student loans put me at a permanent disadvantage in the brave new world you think is dawning. My training is useless for sales. And if the jobs pay less, then salesmen have fewer and fewer people to buy crap anyway.

You keep saying "ride the wave," and I'm telling you, it's a whirlpool. Unlike you, I'll be fine in 20 years, because I know that if you think you're going to make money screwing over other people, you're generally well on your way to being screwed. If you really want to screw people, be first or not at all. By the time everyone can see it, and we're there, it's too late.

You're making money training out-of-work lawyers in "presentation skills?"

Big moving and shaking there - just like Amway sales. You don't see that:

1) There is no barrier to entry for pretending to teach people "presentation skills."

2) There is an ever-shrinking market for this dubious service.

You don't have a trade or a skill. You have a willingness to market to a vulnerable population, and to charge for crap. Excuse me for not applauding your initiative. Hucksters will always be with us, but if I'd wanted to join your ranks I wouldn't have gone to law school!

"The one with the phone, itunes, video, e-mail, texting, internet capabilities, bluetooth? AT&T ALSO outsourced their R&D, MORON. You're not complaining about THAT!!! I bet you actually bragged about the deal you got!"

Um, you are the idiot here. Americans don't get the good cell phones until a year after Asia. It's a complete myth that we have the best of everything in this country.

Also, you assume the companies charge less because they pay less for labor, but that is clearly not the case. Nike pays 12 cents an hour, and charges $100+ per pair.

So now, thanks to globalization, I pay $3 less for a phone because they hired a foreign science department. So what? There are fewer and fewer people in this country with good jobs, and more cheap crap. It's a cycle that only works with mountains of consumer debt.

How do you think we are going to keep paying for this marginally cheaper crap? We can't realistically keep selling eachother fake services, like "presentation skills" and crap phones, because the value of those services are dependent on what the market will bear, and the market is dependent on consumers, and consumers are dependent on wages. So sooner or later someone is going to have to pay a living wage, or everyone will be caught in a race to the bottom.

"

"Law is.... same as any other industry. "

No. It's not.

Law once provided the following:

- A group of people trained and motivated to protect the interests of society.

- An individual trained, motivated, and accountable for protecting the rights of another individual citizen.

- A highly educated population of people who had sought, at personal expense, a role maintaining our legal system.

- A highly paid group of people to buy things, in a consumer based economy.

Thanks to the ABA it now provides:

- A way for law schools to get rich selling overpriced services to people who want to be lawyers.

- A way for non-lawyers to get rich selling legal services to non-lawyers, by pricing out the expensive lawyers who paid for training.

- A captive group of lawyer consumers of Bar Bri, test prep, and now, job-search-related services, all of dubious quality.

Please note, the only people making money in this brave new world are the people who are not lawyers, in large part because these are the people without hefty student loans. Also note, no one is protecting anything or anyone, and no one is accountable for any lack of quality or effort. It's all services being hawked to other service providers, and it's not a growth field.

It's not an opportunity. If this is allowed to continue, it's going to be a really big problem. Lawyers need to get it together, start looking out for the profession, and remember we're supposed to be the glue holding it all together, not the parasite taking what we can get.

Sigh. Once again, the phone example was intended to help you understand the benefit of organizational change. If AT&T was the still the world leader with little to no competition, your cell phone would be expensive. The timeline for introducing technology to the marketplace was not in question, so you wandered off point again. Again, with only one producer - AT&T - the consumer would be in the "take it or leave it" position on both price and availability.

You have missed the point in the software analogy. Development of such software requires a significant amount of legal expertise. My suggestion was intended to assist you in understanding that there are other career options that still involve exclusive interaction with the law and meet your salary requirements. I would not advise you to attempt to sell the final product. You would starve.

My lawyer relatives (surprise!) scrutinized my RE deal before closing; I had little or no risk – thanks for asking! However, my Agent drafted the contract and it was accepted with little modification. The fact that my Agent trumped the lawyer AGAIN in a last minute modification and outpaced him in negotiations was just added fun. We all had a giggle over it.

My writing style on this BLAWG may have left you less impressed than you would have been had I introduced myself with my CV. I advise execs, including lawyers (those matching the imaginary partner persona you imagined above) on delivering a clear message to a variety of audiences - conferences, trade shows, even behind the podium to their own organization. I evaluate their visual content, provide feedback on their voice, language, gestures, etc. sometimes even block and rehearse it like a play. I also work in-studio to assist during taping of video content used for mass communication and web production. Finally, I provide these services to litigators involved in high profile cases. You may have seen an example of what I do on several episodes of The West Wing, where the president is being coached on debating techniques.

I visit different of blogs in order to keep abreast with industry specific concerns, and to grapple with the different personality types typical to the industry. It helps me understand and perform my job better. Yes, you are a research project. It's been fun poking you with a stick to see your visceral reactions.

My advice to you: You are clearly invigorated by this topic, that’s good! Use that energy to its fullest, but don’t attack – NEVER attack – your opponent or their perspective. When they make a good point say so. When you disagree state why - address the facts, be objective. Consider how you would want your children to perceive you, and apply that principal in all interactions, even blogs. Broaden your thinking by reviewing the plethora of materials on the 'net relating to personality type. If this offends you as too left-wing, consider that the development of the Four Humors, the first writing examination of personality, was the original attempt to understand why people are different. Avail yourself of one of the online tests to determine who you are, then and focus on personal development that turns you into a well rounded person. Do it now, if for no other reason than it gives you an edge on understanding your opponent.

You are, indeed, typical of a lawyer. I predict you are an –STJ… just not sure if there is an I or an E in front of that. (Meyers Briggs) I fall in with only 3% of the population – and ENFP (MB) or Idealist/Champion on the Keirsey model. I’m a perfect match for what I do, and what I do is highly valued by those wise enough to realize they need assistance.

Raise your EQ and you will perform better in all things.

Please stop preaching something that hurts people. This has nothing to do with EQ, and you completely misunderstand how competition will and won't work for the specific legal market.

It will lower the salaries paid. It won't improve the quality of legal services.

It will cost us all. It will not be at all similar to the consumer benefit that can happen if you end a monopoly, because for the love of god, law is not an industry. It's a profession.

Your non-lawyer who wrote a contract and negotiated for you should not be practicing law. I'm glad it worked out for you, once, or at least you think it did. But I'm not happy about any unlicensed idiot being able to practice law. I'm not happy about non-citizens practicing law.

If nothing else, you should realize by now that I've thought about this. I know how competition works. And, quite simply, I have concluded this is a bad idea.

As a non-lawyer, you're entitled to disagree, and to advocate for non-lawyers making more money. But make no mistake, we are in competition and you are advocating for a small benefit to yourelf and the other salesmen, at the expense of a large cost to my entire profession.

You are not a disinterested party.

Please stop preaching something that hurts people. This has nothing to do with EQ, and you completely misunderstand how competition will and won't work for the specific legal market.

It will lower the salaries paid. It won't improve the quality of legal services.

It will cost us all. It will not be at all similar to the consumer benefit that can happen if you end a monopoly, because for the love of god, law is not an industry. It's a profession.

Your non-lawyer who wrote a contract and negotiated for you should not be practicing law. I'm glad it worked out for you, once, or at least you think it did. But I'm not happy about any unlicensed idiot being able to practice law. I'm not happy about non-citizens practicing law.

If nothing else, you should realize by now that I've thought about this. I know how competition works. And, quite simply, I have concluded this is a bad idea.

As a non-lawyer, you're entitled to disagree, and to advocate for non-lawyers making more money in law. But make no mistake, we are in competition and you are advocating for a small benefit to yourelf and the other salesmen, at the expense of a large cost to my entire profession.

You are not a disinterested party.

Another needle threaded:

http://menagealaw.blogspot.com/