1

just a douchy lat plug

yeah lat, why are you saying "we" when it was just you? that's how kings used to speak when referring to themselves in the third person.

I suppose that I should know the answer to this, but is Santa Clara Law accredited by the American Bar Association and a member in good standing of the Association of American Law Schools?

@4 maybe he has a tapeworm

Former General Counsel Here: Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you. Who the hell do you think you are to presume to ask me a question for a stupd blog like this. Fuck you and the horse your rode in on.

The erosion of stable employment relationships is definitely the worst part of what is going on. I too remember fondly when getting hired at a law firm was 2 way long-term deal, not firms overly scrutinizing right away (leading to lay offs) and associates looking to bounce asap for greener pastures.

Current General Counsel: I appologize for the rude and crude response of the former General Counsel, 7. On the other hand, he was dead on with the point that you guys don't have enough status to even ask a question of someone as important as a General Counsel. So, go fornicate with yourself.

It's funny how Lat said fewer law schools but didn't say that it means that Santa Clara Law School should close. In terms of the Bay Area, all you need is Berkeley, Stanford, and Hastings. Golden Gate and Santa Clara are prime candidates to close if you are going to reduce the number of (ABA approved) law schools.

I, not we.

Lat has always written using the royal "we"; it's Elie who made the blog all about himself.

I/We people: It's actually "we" not "I" when you're a journalist writing on behalf of a publication. Similar to royalty, who would say "we" because the king was speaking on behalf of himself and God, journalists say we because the individual is speaking on behalf of himself and the publication.

Lat, in speaking at the conference on behalf of himself and ATL, is correct in using the plural. He just knows the formal rules of journalism while you all do not.

13, Journalism has rules?

And we do not?

Assuming the billable hour goes away, will associates' quality of life improve?

The race to bill arguably detracts from efficiency. If an associate can produce high caliber work between 9-6:30 and feel no need to pad the process by staying until 10, wouldn't that behoove the productive associate?

10 - Santa Clara is Tier 1 on U.S. News (top 100). It would survive a purge of law schools.

how about the outsourcing of the legal industry to India so that biglaw partners can have their document review done by unlicensed foreign lawyers? Thanks, ABA!

Many of the top companies now have General Counsels who came from BigLaw. They know first hand how much the firms rip off the clients, just how many fraudulent hours are billed to files, just how little value associates add to the files, and just how much profit the firms actually make for partners who also add little value to the files. They know first hand that the best legal work in America is done by mid-sized firms outside of NYC. As a result, they now are demanding change, and they're getting it. Tough shit for BigLaw and most lawyers in general.

I agree with "them" that we need to close a few law schools. Seriously, if you couldn't get into Harvard or Yale, why would bother going to law school? You might as well be a large animal veterinarian - at least there are available jobs.

Re: the first person thing, Lat has never blogged in the first person singular. Not at Underneath Their Robes and not at Wonkette.

It is his blogging signature / shtick by now. Don't expect him to change.

Top firms or niche practices retain the ability to bill at premium and continue raising rates. Associates in those firms and practices are rewarded with keeping their jobs, but are exposed to the same desalarization and debonufication as their peers. Not a problem. Partner's get richer as associate's real salaries are declining. I am not complaining -- this is just the same story as we observed through the 90's and 2000's -- as the country moves forward, the rich are getting richer at much higher pace than the poor. I am not getting poor, but we are constantly moving in the direction of becoming more and more of a third world country and decimating the middle class, which the rich really need to make money. So, partners, if you care about your grandchildren and their grandchildren, and the value of your UES apartment 50 years from now, stop screwing with us or we won't be able to afford to buy anything from those corporations that pay your legal fees and the corporations won't have any money to pay you, and your londons, prestons, parises, sebastians, p.c.'s, jessicas, and god know whos will have to go public schools, where they will be severely beaten.

oh yeah, apologies for the typoZ.

Regarding making law school two years, Northwestern is setting the trend with a new two-year program. I can only hope that many other good schools will follow in their footsteps. There's no reason not to, especially since the total tuition remains the same.

Shouldn't law school just be Bar/Bri?

24 - I second

Used to be you could do that

But the march toward standardization and institutionalization of all education, with constantly increasing requirements, goes on...

Eric Goldman has a "blog" in which he arrogantly pontificates on everything from dog poop to punk rock. He is a self-important, self-serving ignoramus who knows less about law than a 5-year-old. Have you noticed that Harvard law professors do not host similar "legal" blogs on the internet? That is because they regard it as infinitely below them to engage in such mindless drivel read only by asshole techies. Eric Goldman caters to Silicon Valley and Silicon Valley has him securely in their back pocket. You should be ashamed to promote someone as low, vile and despicable as Eric Goldman. California is already bankrupt and Silicon Valley is a slime pit of evil.