Screening ‘BigLaw Apprentice’ at Law Firms
First years to 100K and an “apprenticeship”?
In the past two months, we’ve reported on three firms instituting an apprenticeship model for first year associates: Drinker Biddle, Howrey, and Frost Brown Todd. “Apprentices” start at the firm at a lower salary and are not billed out to clients, billed out at a lower rate than normal associates, or billed out for lower total hours. It sounds like an apprentice is a “paralegal plus.” Of course, that “plus” includes a J.D. and its accompanying law school debt.
Still, when we polled you last week, almost 70% of ATL readers who voted said they were in favor of Howrey’s $100K-plus-professional-training apprenticeship.
The National Law Journal (subscription) has an extensive piece on apprenticeships (noting two other firms that have instituted the practice — labor firm Ford & Harrison and Dallas’s Strasburger & Price):
These firms are putting new recruits through additional apprenticeship programs that they say will better train their attorneys for life at a law firm and for handling clients. Think of it as the equivalent of a medical residency, only with suits instead of scrubs.The latest — and so far largest — firm to move to an apprenticeship model, 659-lawyer Howrey, announced its program last week. Starting next year, first-years at the firm will get a pay cut — from $160,000 to $100,000 in base pay plus a $25,000 bonus to pay down law school loans — and they’ll spend a good portion of their time attending classes with partners and shadowing them on client matters. The apprenticeship period will last two years.
Are law students really like medical students, in need of on-the-job training in order to operate in the real world? If apprenticeships become widespread — which admittedly seems unlikely once the tough economic times are behind us — should the training at a firm mean one less year in law school? Firm salaries are going down, but law school tuition is going up. Maybe it’s time to rebalance.
A round-up of the salaries for BigLaw apprentices, and a poll on how law schools should be reacting to deflating salaries, after the jump.
Firms like the apprenticeships because it reassures clients who are reluctant to shell out the big bucks for green lawyers. And this will help avoid the need to defer new associates. While the firms save on overhead by paying lower salaries, they won’t be making money off these associates since they won’t be billed out to clients at the same rates or frequency as in the past.
The NLJ has a nice round-up of the salaries in the current apprentice programs:
At Howrey, the drop from 27 to 20 associates and the pay cut will reduce first-year salary costs from $4.16 million to $2.5 million. Salaries rise at Howrey for the second year of the apprenticeship to $125,000 plus another $25,000 bonus for getting through the program successfully.“Our paying less is a way for us to separate those who are solely in it for the money from those who want to be litigators with us for the long haul,” Ruyak said Ford & Harrison, which launched its program in 2007, paid its inaugural class of six apprentices its standard $130,000 because they signed on under that salary rate. Those hired for next year will make $115,000.
Drinker Biddle dropped salaries for the first six months of the year to $105,000. Associates can then expect their salaries to go up to “market rate” at the end of the initial six months.
Frost Brown Todd dropped salaries to $80,000 from the roughly $100,000 it offered, depending on the market. Strasburger & Price, which has about 180 lawyers, pays its four first-year associates $120,000 with a $10,000 stipend to cover bar expenses.
Law school tuition is still set according to an assumption of a post-graduation job that pays $160,000. If salaries are dropping, should law schools be sharing in the pain? Or, if firms are offering the practical training that law school are supposed to offer, should law schools should shorten their programs?
What should law schools be doing given the changes in the legal industry? Over to you, ATL readers:
For some firms, an extra step for the newest recruits [National Law Journal]
(80) Comments
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
why not?
I stamp something a little different on the foreheads of female first years.
The difference is that once residency ends, you can dictate your life in a much easier manner. My friends work three 12 hour days as hospitalists and no pagers (yes, I know they "only" make 120-150K after paying med mal insurance). If there was a legal version of this, I'd be more than happy to do a residency.
I don't think law school tuition is set based on an assumption that grads will depart for jobs making 160k. That would be ridiculous, there is no way on earth every grad from every school will get out making tip top dollar.
I make money the old fashioned way, stealing cancer meds from patients and selling them to college students at a mark up.
Medium Farva
The legal profession is so diverse that it is unrealistic to expect 3 years of standardized education, in any form, to prepare a law student to become the universal lawyer. Apprenticeships as a new requirement for bar admission, akin to the post-MD variety, might not be a bad idea.
The trade-off of course is less flexibility down the road. A BigLaw litigator can theoretically leave the firm at any time and go in-house, do public interest, etc. A dermatologist cannot leave the practice and become a psychiatrist.
Law school tuition is determined by supply and demand, not the salaries of its graduates (which is only tangentially relevant). HLS tuition is about the same as Suffolk law tuition, and I'm pretty sure their graduates don't have the same salaries. But lawyers are bad at math so there will always be demand for spots at TTT schools.
This has been done in other countries (UK, Australia, parts of Latin America and continental Europe) for a long time. It's about damn time we change the career model of legal practice.
There is nothing a 1st year associate can do which is worth $160K (or even $100K). I would rather see both salaries and billable hour requirements reduced, and a greater emphasis placed on training and building experience.
Above the Law
Kash, the 70% who approved of the Howrey program are a) associates/partners who've had the chance to pay down their debt, or b) trustfarians who never paid a dime.
Note to prospective law students: Female law students do not look like the girl pictured.
Does the goat herder recruit apprentices?
Kash is so beautiful. She healed my wounds in Vietnam and nursed me back to health.
i started at 125K in 2005 at a biglaw firm and thought it was awesome. we all did. also, i managed to save a decent chunk of change my frst year. i was a bit incredulous when my salary almost doubled since then for no apparent reason and i'm not at all surprised that most firms can't really afford that. the bubble had to burst, just like any bubble. and remember, lower salaries = fewer layoffs and a quicker recovery.
Nothing wrong with an apprenticeship in the legal profession. In many countries around the world, this is still the norm. Don't want to be an apprentice earning $100k or less? Then don't go work for the firms that have such programs. You may find, however, that such firms offer pretty good training and the associates who work there are in high demand from firms who don't have such programs.
Doesn't the apprentice on the show of the same name start out at $100,000? Kind of puts things in perspective.
"Are law students really like medical students, in need of on-the-job training in order to operate in the real world? "
YES
Cut my salary, fine, but also cut your expectation that I'm going to read and respond to the email you sent me at 1am before the next morning. Also, if you're going to call me a trainee, I should get not only more, but also better training that what is currently given in most large law firms today.
What I see essentially happening is law firms just slashing salaries and changing the title from "first year or second year" to "trainee." I highly doubt most of the firms will actually change anything else (well, b/c that costs money). So either create an actual training program or just call it a pay cut, but don't think that you're that clever that associates won't realize your full o' ...
"What I see essentially happening is law firms just slashing salaries and changing the title from "first year or second year" to "trainee." I highly doubt most of the firms will actually change anything else (well, b/c that costs money)."
Sounds about right.
18--Exactly. This is NITA boondoggle. Those trainees are going to be miserable.
Good idea, Now all we have to do is chop one year off of law school. That last year is such a waste.
Three big questions:
1. What is the actual quality of the training? Will an associate emerging from two years of "apprenticeship" be better, less, or just as, qualified as the associate emerging from two years of work? What is the incentive for a partner or more senior associate to provide any level of good training?
2. Is there any guarantee of a job after those two years?
3. Is there any indication that this is something more than clever marketing on the part of law firms to hire entry-level lawyers at dramatically lower salaries without having to call it a simple cut in salary?
Also 22, attorney turnover is already (in a good economy) about 50% after two years...wouldn't we expect it to be even worse under this type of system?
Who is going to do doc review? Third years?
Glorified paycut. NYC to 100k!
Also, doc review to India!
This training is "dubious." It certainly can't be a better learning experience than first and second years thrown into projects and doing real work, and screwing up at the same time. Besides, training is only as good as more senior associates willing to train them. Not sure how that attitude is going to change at these sorts of firms. My guess is that it won't.
I'm trying to figure out what is in the trainee/apprenticeship model for the law firms.
Sure, they get to pay a class or two lower wages, but if there is no work (and, thus, no "training opportunities") to go around, then the firm still has payroll and benefit costs to satisfy.
Furthermore, why would any law firm want to be known as "the best firm for training"? If you train your first and second years well, and everyone knows it, then all you are doing is essentially running a minor league farm-type operation for other law firms, who will continually poach the talent away.
I just don't see how this is a winning formula for anyone, really.
Former Thacher partners keep calling my apprentices and saying...things. Angry, sexual things.
I think it is a great idea. Trying to recoup from clients the $160,000+ cost of an untrained lawyer isn't fair to clients, and the corresponding pressure to bill hours isn't fair to new associates. This is a more realistic approach that should serve everyone better, even if first years make less money.
How many real hours do the attorneys need to bill in order to justify 100k salaries (assuming no additional expenses for this training program -a very safe assumption)? Is this really just part time work?
Finally, in order for a "trainee" program to be worth while, the trainee should be required to commit to the firm for X years, to allow the firm to recoup for its expenses in training. If no commitment, then likely no costs, then *gasp* no training: therefore glorified paycut/part time employees.
29,
These "untrained lawyers" are really smart people who bill 2300 hours a year at $300 plus an hour. The partners make bank off the associates. The tasks performed by the associates are commensurate with their intelligence and experience (memos, doc review, discovery, etc.).
Law school tuition is set based on an assumption of a starting salary after graduation? And that assumption is that the starting salary is the starting salary paid by a relatively few large law firms? That doesn't make much sense. The ability to pay off loans may be one factor law schools consider in setting tuition, but my guess is that is not really driving tuition levels.
Here's the problem with all these "training programs." They don't really give an accurate picture of what life as a big-firm lawyer really is. As much as everyone hates it, you learn the most when you are putting in long hours, scrambling to meet deadlines on several different projects at once. You learn how to produce good work product in a short amount of time to help people make important decisions.
There's a reason that a lot of big firm associates have good exit opportunities after practicing 4-5 years (well, at least in most economies). If you can make it that long and leave on your own terms, legal employers know you've got pretty valuable skills that have been honed in the pressure cooker that is biglaw. It isn't ideal, but for people who get it, it is a training system that works.
Third year of law school needs to go. A crime. ABA - get on this!
I've been to lots of firm-sponsored training programs. No comparison to on the job experience even at jr lvl. Cut salaries (to 125k) AND billables target/requirement (to 1800) AND client rates (by $100-200/hr). Otherwise leave system as is. NYC COL + school debt = $160k is not a lot.
24. If done right, staff attorneys would be my guess. Reduce the number of associate hires (hence Howrey's "select few" language) and beef up your more cost-effective staff attorney/outsourced-attorney ranks. Then go back towards more traditional partner/associate ratios and treat associates as you would mangement trainees and staff attorneys/outsources associates as ordinary workers. A two-tiered structure seems a logical progression from the industrialization of the legal practice that we've seen over the years that appears to have been caused by vastly increased document loads. Of course, if something like that really happens law schools outside of, say, the top 10 or 20 will have to go back to charging vastly reduced rates as few, if any, of their graduates will go into the profession earning the big bucks.
Thank you 8 and 29 for cuing the "no 1st year" is worth $---K. I'm sure you brought those same concerns to your firm's management when you were paid more than you think you were worth. Salaries are determined by supply and demand, not productivity or some other communist metric you have in your head's.
The apprenticeship concept makes sense. Under the current system, you get jack-sh*t training (maybe 1 week) and, unless your firm's clients like to throw money around, you are pressured to do tons of mindless tasks while getting precious little time to actually learn how to be a lawyer. You can't shadow anyone because it's not billable, so you're not in court, you're not in negotiations, you're not learning how to do depositions, you're not getting the training you need. And $100,000 is an awesome real-world salary for someone with no experience. I agree that law school is too expensive. The insane first year salaries have given an excuse to law schools to charge exorbitant tuition and overpay professors.
I think it's a great idea. I've seen a lot of paralegals who can run circles around first years, so being a "glorified paralegal" for a year sounds about right to me.
Law schools should definitely drop the third year, and maybe the second and the first. I'm not joking. Consider the fact that British and Australian lawyers need only an undergraduate degree to practice law in common law jurisdictions quite similar to our own. Starting salaries are much lower of course. But new graduates aren't so heavily invested in the legal profession that they feel they have to pursue it even if they hate it. People who stick with it and learn on the job make up some of the finest lawyers in the common law world. People who don't like it can move to another career without crushing debt.
I know this will offend the dignity of people who believe the law is just as complicated as medicine in its own way, but for the most part it's not. Most of what we do can certainly be learned on the job.
you were all first years once, sorry the market did drive up your salaries as high as they are now, but isn't it time to stop being bitter about it? Everyone on this site is either a 1L or a bitter senior associate about to be passed over.
I think a law school's expenses have a bigger influence on tuition than the future career prospects of its students. If you're going to lure a top teaching prospect away from the private sector (not to mention other law schools), you're still going to pay a substantial salary.
Meanwhile, I don't think there's much pressure to reduce tuition costs. Law school is enormously competitive and so changes in tuition probably produce a smaller change in willingness to pay (especially among 2Ls and 3Ls who are pretty much a captive audience). Minnesota certainly seems to think its students are price inelastic.
It's unclear that the recession will cause the number of applicants to decline rather than increase. The job market for undergrads is pretty slow, especially in I-banking and consulting, and you'll have similar concerns about debt in graduate or medical school.
A lot of law students in the comments. Look:
1. Law firms are interested in profits per partner, period. Anyone who has ever had the misfortune to endure extensive "training" in biglaw can tell you that either the training is i) an excruciating waste of time or ii) consists mainly of you doing billable work. That's about it. This is nothing more than a marketing gimmick.
2. Attrition rates for associates after two years are extremely high. The "trainee" system enables a law firm to get more labor for less cost, and, potentially, makes it harder for the "trainee" to lateral elsewhere. Better deal for the firm. Worse deal for the associate.
3. You have to love the creativity of the guy who came up with this. "No no, we're not slashing salaries; we're INNOVATIVE." That and two bucks twenty-five cents will get you on the subway...
4. A 25k bonus for paying off debt? I'm actually not sure what that means. They're going to pay you a bonus, but you're bound to use it to pay off debt? I'd rather take it in salary and avoid the higher taxes.
Interesting that if you add the salary plus the "debt bonus" you get the 125k number of a few years ago.
Bottom line is that it is a job. But everyone should be clear about the benefits and costs going in. Hopefully sites like this, and law school recruiting departments (sorry, I mean career services offices), will encourage clarity from these firms on the precise nature of the training program.
"Are law students really like medical students, in need of on-the-job training in order to operate in the real world? If apprenticeships become widespread -- which admittedly seems unlikely once the tough economic times are behind us -- should the training at a firm mean one less year in law school?"
.
Yes and Yes. On one end of the spectrum, it's absolutely bizarre to expect either that someone can be a newly minted lawyer and perform real work for clients, with no oversight, without ever having been an active part of legal practice. Alternatively, on the other end, it's absolutely bizarre to expect that even where oversight by experienced attorneys is expected and employed, clients should pay outrageously high fees for that work.
.
It's not at all obvious that the need for training is met by a third year of law school or that the third year is really necessary to begin practice oriented work. On the other hand, it is clear that new JDs need work and experience in order to become competent. Those are necessary costs of training and working in certain professions, including in law. Those costs should accordingly be borne by industry, which is what an internship, or apprenticeship, or articling system would do. Naturally, we would expect that salaries would be lower during that time and continued employment may be provisional.
This "training program" is total bull. Clients don't like paying $160K for 1st years -- but do so anyway b/c some legal services (research/doc review) can be completed adequately by 1st years.
Now, those "trainees" who dont get any client exposure or significant experience on legal projects during their "training program" years will be just as incompetent as current 1st years except the firm will be billing them out as 3rd years. Great -- now clients have to shell out $185K for someone who has been "shadowing" big partners (i.e. getting them coffee; carrying documents; booking travel; etc)...
I am sure the firms instituting this two-tiered system will argue that there will be some actual work and learning done by the "trainees" so that they will be better prepared to handle client matters. However, as people have already astutely mentioned, associates learn by doing. Understanding the law isnt the issue. The difficulty comes with applying the law to particular client needs and legal problems. Otherwise everyone who could memorize legal rules would be partners...
For those associates who support this move...any ideas whether those "training years" will count towards partnership? Would it really surprise anyone if firms decided that associates got less than full credit toward partnership while they were being "trained"? I sure wouldn't....
This "training program" is total bull. Clients don't like paying $160K for 1st years -- but do so anyway b/c some legal services (research/doc review) can be completed adequately by 1st years.
Now, those "trainees" who dont get any client exposure or significant experience on legal projects during their "training program" years will be just as incompetent as current 1st years except the firm will be billing them out as 3rd years. Great -- now clients have to shell out $185K for someone who has been "shadowing" big partners (i.e. getting them coffee; carrying documents; booking travel; etc)...
I am sure the firms instituting this two-tiered system will argue that there will be some actual work and learning done by the "trainees" so that they will be better prepared to handle client matters. However, as people have already astutely mentioned, associates learn by doing. Understanding the law isnt the issue. The difficulty comes with applying the law to particular client needs and legal problems. Otherwise everyone who could memorize legal rules would be partners...
For those associates who support this move...any ideas whether those "training years" will count towards partnership? Would it really surprise anyone if firms decided that associates got less than full credit toward partnership while they were being "trained"? I sure wouldn't....
i would LOVE for my firm to go to this model!!! law firms if youre looking at this site, this is a great alternative for just graduated law students afraid of being laid off as soon as they start!!!
sounds like a great plan, why should anyone be guaranteed a cushy job if they simply dont strive to prove to be the best, and are given a true opportunity to be able to ask questions learn the ropes and how to practice law effectively and thoroughly....not just because you've earned a degree
sounds like a great plan, why should anyone be guaranteed a cushy job if they simply dont strive to prove to be the best, and are given a true opportunity to be able to ask questions learn the ropes and how to practice law effectively and thoroughly....not just because you've earned a degree
#6 i u are lucky talks are ongoing to forgive student loans if you study child phsyciatry because of the dire shortage....keep your fingers crossed hopefully they pass the law and maybe you would only need a few classes to make the switch.....wishing all god speed!
#6 i u are lucky talks are ongoing to forgive student loans if you study child phsyciatry because of the dire shortage....keep your fingers crossed hopefully they pass the law and maybe you would only need a few classes to make the switch.....wishing all god speed!
#6 i u are lucky talks are ongoing to forgive student loans if you study child phsyciatry because of the dire shortage....keep your fingers crossed hopefully they pass the law and maybe you would only need a few classes to make the switch.....wishing all god speed!
#6 i u are lucky talks are ongoing to forgive student loans if you study child phsyciatry because of the dire shortage....keep your fingers crossed hopefully they pass the law and maybe you would only need a few classes to make the switch.....wishing all god speed!
First through third years should be paid at paralegal levels and should be billed out at paralegal rates.
And Kash, how's the ass lobster today?
Regardless of whether this program is a good idea, it's a moot point to debate.
Right now, Howery is the only major firm doing this. When presented with a choice between 160k and being an associate and 100k and being a "trainee", which do you think the best students are going to pick?
The answer is that Howery will only get people who were unable to get anything else. My prediction: this program will be abandoned come recruiting season next year.
47- spoke just like someone who never could get biglaw and is jealous and bitter about it. Do you really think biglaw is a "cushy" job? What a fucking idiot. And no, it's not just because they "got a degree"-- new biglaw associates (at least at top firms) have consistently beaten the competition throughout their lives. This isn't a bulletproof metric but it saves time-- and most of these people succeed in biglaw until they decide to do something else. Sorry about your personal failures in life.
Another idiotic comment I saw someone post: "I've seen paralegals run circles around first year associates." Really? I'd like to know what kind of firm this was. Paralegals DO NOT PRACTICE LAW. They don't even perform case law research-- basically they format documents, organize files and handle basic administrative tasks. Only at the worst firms would paralegals ever be given the type of responsibility to even allow them to "run circles" around associates, unless you're talking about beating the associates at administrative tasks. Seriously, where do you idiots work?? If paralegals were so great firms would vastly cut the number of associates they hire and just get more paralegals instead, since paralegals cost a fraction of what associates cost. Stop being dumb.
Here's another retard comment that should be addressed: "no first year associate is worth 160k." Really? So should partners be reviewing documents and charging clients $1000 / hour? Would that make more sense? Also, so sorry about your inability to understand supply and demand, or the function of a law firm. Salary is a symptom of supply and demand, which reflects what the market (clients) will pay. And law firms add value in ways that aren't reflected in pure billing rates-- what about risk management by handling a huge SEC investigation? The point here is that law firms do these things far better than companies could, and top flight law firms cost a premium-- even for first year associates. If these services really weren't "worth" it, then clients wouldn't pay it and firms would charge less. And in the case of crap firms like Howrey and the other ones listed here, that's exactly what's happening. But don't expect the same thing to happen at respectable firms.
-Vault 5 midlevel
"The answer is that Howery will only get people who were unable to get anything else."
How is this news?
55 must be getting ready to get canned....the days of *ss kissing are over, earn ur merit and prove yourself...sissy
55 must be getting ready to get canned....the days of *ss kissing are over, earn ur merit and prove yourself...sissy
55 here- not getting canned, sorry. But otherwise that was a great response, and really hit the substance of my post. Great job, idiot.
55, I hope you are at my firm.
-Incoming V5 associate
55,
Are you litigation or transactional? In your experience, how many years of practice does one need in either area to be able to function on one's own? Thank you in advance for any insights.
60- I hope so too, so long as you're ok to be around and hardworking. Don't let the losers on this board get you down.
61- Litigation all the way. In terms of how many years before you can be on your own, I think it depends a lot on what type of work you get while in biglaw, what kind of law you want to practice on your own and basically just how smart / skilled you are. If I had to come up with a general rule I would say that 3 years in biglaw is probably enough and 4 is definitely enough, provided that you don't go to a firm that puts people on doc review until they're a third year associate. Also, I'll go with 4 years on average to handle fairly complicated matters effectively. If you want to do slip and falls or something like that then I think 3 years (and probably even 2) is enough, although I'm assuming you're interested in something a little more challenging / interesting.
I think that's a great idea. Does a US law school grad really have what it takes to be a lawyer? I doubt it. At least all the practical skills are missing. And they are definitively not taught in law school. Could you run your own law practice right after graduating? No.
As already pointed out the legal education in many other countries is already two-tiered since a long time. In the UK, in Germany and other countries you first have to study law at a university and then for several years do a clerkship, apprenticeship or similar. After learning "the law" in law school, you learn all the practical skills during that second stage (How do I write and file a lawsuit, how do I bill a client, how do I observe all professional rules). You also spend time clerking for judges, prosecutors and administrators and therefore get a broader understanding of the whole legal system. If you are going to be a criminal defense attorney, it is great to now from your own inside experience, how the prosecution really works. If you are any type of attorney, you know much better, how judges think and work, if you have spend some time with them, drafted judgments yourself and organized trials. If you are going to be a Judge, it is great to know a lawyers perspective, from your own first hand perspective gained during that second stage of legal education. And so far and so on.
As an in-house attorney for many years, I admit to liking this program. Having been a biglaw attorney for several years myself, and as a veteran reviewer of legal bills, I can generally tell when I am being billed for value, and when I am being billed for training; I have candidly shifted work away from biglaw firms that push too many junior 'training' or 'make work' hours.
The value to me as the client, and to the firm in this program is that it avoids the irritation caused by the latter.
(To qualify that, I would note that I will pay for legitimate document review by 1st years, which is what I did back in the 19th century when I was a 1st year, and which is a valuable learning experience.)
Let me see, we are going to institute a "magic circle" approach to law training but keep the 3 years of post-grad tuition while GB does not. Yes this approach makes sense!
55 = douchebag... those "crap" firms you refer to are starting to eat the V5 firms' lunch. If you haven't noticed, more and more clients don't see the value in your so-called "respectable" firms. See some of the other posts here from in-house lawyers...
In-house guy here. We don't like 1st years working on our matters, and routinely cut their time substantially. When we call with a question, we expect the partner knows the answer or can find out quickly and efficiently. Otherwise s/he isn't worth $600/hr. Lengthy legal memos are useless, as a 1-2 paragraph e-mail is sufficient to answer pretty much any question.
Why are so many afraid of apprenticeships. That is, after all, how lawyers used to be trained. Maybe then this whole sense of entitlement might start to diminish.
Going to law school doesn't teach you to be a lawyer.
Choice D: Drop the third year year of law school. Still no apprenticships.
At a real firm, a good firm, the first two years already focus as an apprenticeship, but one where associates are adding value to the case and billing rates are (mostly) justified.
When I was a first year at my V10, I did dep. outlines, attended depositions, wrote sections of trial brieffs, wrote drafts of motions in their entirety, worked with a General Counsel on his affidavit, and worked with opposing counsel on stipulations. My experience may be somewhat outside the norm as I was lucky enough to get staffed on some bet-the-company cases. But we generally give our first years a lot of responsibility. And our best, most intelligent, and most profitable clients don't fight us on it.
A smart young associate can do a lot with proper supervision and guidance. Sophisticated clients understand this and are happy to pay lower rates for the initial legwork, with the full understanding that senior associates and Partners properly edit and manage the work and they are never getting unedited work product from first year associates.
I do support billing by project. Doc review that a monkey can do really should not be billed out at $350 an hr, $500 an hour whether it's a first year or fourth year doing it.
55 - what's it like to be as smart as you clearly are? Law firms should hire you as a consultant because it really sounds like you have a lot to offer.
By the way, in this economy, no one - and I do mean no one -- is paying any partner at any law firm $1,000 per hour to do anything.
70 is clearly not at a top firm with a top bankruptcy practice. Clients continue to gladly fork over more than $1000 an hour to top bankruptcy Partners.
70 - and I do mean 70 - is simply wrong. 70, if you are going to say things so emphatically and act like such a pedantic douche, please make sure you are right. (By the way, our top litigation Partners [a handful] continue to make nearly $1000 an hr as evidenced by the fee apps.)
Not 55. 55 is also a douche.
I'm a believer in "earning your stripes" as a young lawyer. 100k is still more than enough to pay back your student loans, and it'll be a much needed grounding experience for law grads. I say we should be grateful that firms are trying to accommodate law students instead of cutting back again.
I think many associates would trade $35k in salary to for valuable, hands-on training through a formal training program that actually teaches them how to be lawyers. Yes, this is similar to a 4th year of law school (and the attendant tuition), but law schools aren't equipped to teach their students how to be lawyers. Besides, no 1st year lawyer is really worth $160k anyway. Starting salaries should be around $145k, if that.
55, you are obviously a top-notch attorney with superior people-skills-- we want you at our firm, kid! Top dollar, as you obviously have the experience and know how to make it rain- and you sound like a fun person to be around!!! Oh man, you're the real deal-- keep it up, boss!
To the poster who wondered why the separate loan money- the firm can give the person a one-year forgivable loan for law school debt repayment that is not subject to income tax. Also, the Howrey plan includes a provision that 1/4 of the attorney's hours can (should) be spent on pro bono matters. For public interest lawyers, like me, this means more help for our clients as well as training in all aspects of a case. Also, as a side note, for someone in my position, where a 7th year salary was frozen this year at my 6 year level at less than half of what y'all are quibbling about for 1st year 2009 hires, it's a bit sick.
Ok - take this comment for what its worth since I am not an attorney, but I am ok with this model of practice. A lot of other professions have similar models, outside of just medicine. How about engineering? I know that engineers are released into the wild after only 4 years of school unlike lawyers or doctors, but then you have to work for 4 years (as what is now labeled as an engineer intern) before you can sit for the test to become a licensed professional engineer. So a model which gives a lawyer on the job traning, perhaps removing a year of college as a trade-off, makes a lot of sense and makes for a more rounded person who knows something just besides books.
Thanks 55. Is there a reason you chose litigation over transactional? Do you recommend the practice over transactional?
As a former paralegal at one of the best firms I can say that I DID run circles around first years. I wasn't practicing law, but at least I understood the basics.
First years with no experience are worthless and everyone here can agree to that.
How about firms require people to paralegal BEFORE law school? that way lawyers would realize they hate law BEFORE going to school and get so much debt?
Maybe we'd all be happier if we would have tried this out before committing to it...
55 here.
77- I chose lit because I just found it more interesting. I'm somewhat lucky based on what the economy is doing, but back when I was deciding on a practice group I just thought I could deal with doing lit easier than corporate.
I wouldn't really recommend lit or corp in any sort of absolute sense; it really depends on your interests. Would you enjoy writing briefs / interacting with regulators / taking depositions, or would you be more happy negotiation contract provisions / drafting a prospectus, disclosure statement, 10-K, etc.? I think it really depends on your work preference and interests.
To the rest of you: Get it through your heads that no one "deserves" anything. Not $20k and not $160k. We make what the market will bear; our "worth" is not some random number that the partners make up. Learn some basic economics or at least stop commenting on things that are beyond your experience or understanding. Besides, I'm sure you have some dog bites / slip and fall / insurance claims to deal with.
78 - I couldn't agree with you more. I see the paralegals run the circles around this biglaw firm. They do more than just administrative work here.