I had an interview after being no-offered. Everyone in the office understood what happened and I didn't feel stigmatized at all.

Once law firms and other future employers stop looking at a "no-offer" like some kind of scarlet letter this won't be an issue.

What was the final offer rate @ Fish & Richardson?

Kash, if I had been at the bar, I would have bought both you and David a drink. And I would not have expected an offer.

How old is Kash ? Is it possible that her parents were big Led Zep fans? Was she named after the disputed region in Asia ? Do her folks simply like soft wool ? This issue needs to be explored -- it's way more interesting than any of the posts on this site today.

When you date someone, you don't have to actively reject everyone else 9 months beforehand, only to then be rejected by the one you choose, and have to listen to every firm you rejected say "too late." It may be the case that there should be a more active fluid dating market between summers and firms, but until the NALP rules, rigid job recruiting time schedules, and a non-existent or greatly reduced 3L recruiting practice change, students should not be blamed for having a sense of entitlement to offers from their summer firms.

We are all stupid for going to law school.

/ career

8 is right. Blame yourselves.

#1 Here.

I was no-offered last Summer in the first wave of mid-size regional firms cutting offer rates to around 50%. (not performance-based -- I have references from every attorney I worked for). I graduated Salutatorian from a T25 (not T14, but not far off either).

I have had a number of interviews since them. A few of them couldn't get over the fact that I was no-offered and gave me the "suspicious eye." Others just shrugged, smiled, and basically said "don't sweat it, the economy sucks."

At any rate, all I am getting at is that if we are expected to "accept" the fact that firms will (in many cases) arbitrarily no-offer people, then firms need to come to a consensus that no-offers are no longer the end of the world.

I have never commented on this shitty blog before, but this post takes the cake.

Are you serious? Are you out of your god damn mind? I understand that the world is changing, and that we all have to adapt - but these firms recruit brilliant, talented people so they can put them into indentured servitude at document review mills for 2,500 hours a year. One of the only reasons that the BIGLAW work environment was tolerated was because young attorneys thought that this was the one place where there was no uncertainty regarding their career trajectory. Now, firms are abusing the unspoken agreement between themselves and top law students - and you cheerlead for them? What an asshole.

When a firm takes 10 weeks to make offers to its summers, the summer associates are put in a terrible position. I went on an interview and when I told the mid sized firm partner that I had yet to hear from my summer firm about an offer, he was no longer interested b/c he assumed that I would rather work there than at his firm. I just want a job.

Gawdammit 12 I know this pain!

It doesn't really matter whether firms stop viewing a no-offer as a scarlet letter.

Why? Because who is doing 3L recruiting anyway?

So does it just come down to your 2L OCI?

Law is waaaayyyyyy oversaturated.

I like this post. It shows an understanding that law firms are BUSINESSES.

This article is missing something important though: say a law student has an offer for summer employment at firms X and Y, and both boast about how they give offers to 95%+ of their summers. Based on these representations, the student believes their offer is essentially a sure thing at either firm and chooses to go to firm X. Then, firm X decides to give 30% offers while firm Y has offered 95% as they have in the past. That's not fair to the student.

In short, if you're going to dangle a 95% offer rate out there to entice students to come to you, it isn't fair to not follow through on that.

Actually, there is some 3L recruiting going on. It tends to be secondary markets, or foreign offices of large firms (S&C in Paris + Berlin are recruiting Tax LL.M.'s, for example).

But no doubt it's tough for 3L's.

I was no-offered from one of the premier firms in Philadelphia. I understand the slow-down / lack of business, but struggle with the firm's decision to only make offers to 1/3 of the class because... and read this slowly... THEY TOLD US FROM DAY 1 OF THE SUMMER PROGRAM THAT THEY HAD POSITIONS FOR ALL OF US.

When law students feel entitled, that's wrong. But when firms just flat out lie to their summers... that's worse.

17 - Restatement 90!!!

"I'm thinking of going to law school..."

Hard punch to the face.

-8

17 and 19 -

If you believe what a bunch of lawyers told you, I have some condos in Miami to sell you.

Nice try. Here's how it works: Summer associates add no economic value. Now that there's no pressure to "recruit," since it's a buyers' market, the only reason to hire them is to have an extended, summer-long interview. At the end of that "interview," if the summer makes the cut, they should be hired.

Problem is, many firms brought in more people to "interview" than they could hire, while still maintaining the illusion (and perhaps self-delusion) that they would keep all qualified summers.

If firms had intended all along to bring in 50 summers and keep the top 30%, that's fine, but it should be disclosed up front. Let people know what they're getting themselves into. Don't recruit in Fall 2008 under one set of assumptions, and then hire in Fall 2009 under another.

To 19:

I had the same issue last Summer. I was in the pre-eminent firm in a secondary market (smaller than Philly, but not tiny).

The told all of us that the job was "ours to lose" multiple times.

Then they had a 55% offer rate.

I talked to someone there this Summer, and they told them the same thing.

What's amazing is the dishonesty, not the fact that there are no-offerings.

"I was no-offered from one of the premier firms in Philadelphia"

Which one? Let's get it all out on the table now.

Every poster that has noted that the entire problem is with the stigma of being no-offered (or laid-off, terminated, etc.) is hitting the nail on the head. We all understand that law firms are a business. When times are bad, firms have to cut expenses, and the easiest way to do it is by cutting anyone that isn't a partner and not bringing new bodies on board.

However, this notion of law being "only" a business is still somewhat new. It used to be that law was considered a profession, that partners understood that there would be good and bad years for practice groups, and that the busier groups in bad economic times would carry the slower groups. Partners and associates weren't thrown out onto the street when times got bad. Because of that mentality, it was commonly believed that if you were asked to leave the firm (or weren't asked to join), you must have been a pretty crappy attorney, completely socially incompetent, etc., because law firms didn't react to the economy like corporations did, so if they didn't want you, there must have been a very good reason other than the economy. You were essentially being rejected by the profession, not just the business.

Now, it seems that you can be laid off/no-offered just as easily as someone in the corporation, but the stigma of being "rejected" by the profession remains. I think it's slowly changing and there are definitely people out there that recognize the economic problems, but we still have a lot of older partners, judges, etc that follow the old beliefs. Until that changes, no-offers and layoffs will still be hard to overcome.

This is all true and fair. However this is a result of overhiring on the part of the firms, largely through no fault of their own. The economy was in decent shape when this year's summer class was hired.

When everything collapsed, it is appropriate that only the best were offered (rather than hiring and firing shortly thereafter because there wasn't enough work to go around). Offer rates this summer are a reflection of the work the particular firm has. Some are in better shape than others.

BUT, the summer classes next year should be considerably smaller and offer rates should be considerably higher. It would not be fair to law students to have big summer classes when firms now well know that they likely will not be able to give a large number of those students offers.

This is all because lawyers generally can't manage people or money, otherwise they would be business people.

Firms who haven't offered yet, you are a JOKE. Everyone knows that if you haven't given out offers then you are not on the level of the V20. There is no reason to hide from bad press, you're already getting it. All you are doing is hurting the summer associates who you have yet to offer or no offer.

But business people generally can't manage people or money either, 28. So, I guess we're really fucked.

A better analogy would be to a situation in which you had one date with a hot chick, and if she wasn't into you, you would never date anyone remotely attractive again. That sounds pretty crappy, as is being no-offered. And those "benefits" of the summer program look pretty lousy when measured against opportunity costs (how many people, if they'd known they would be no-offered, would have never gone to law school at all?).

Yeah ain't gonna disagree with ya there 30.

Going to live in a van down....

At any rate, the net result of this is that I have a J.D. from a great school, with a "summa cum laude" next to it, and I have an LL.M. in tax from the best school to have an LL.M. in tax from. I have no job, and no prospect of getting one. Federal clerkships didn't work out because judges don't want tax attorneys. Big firms see me as an overqualified schlub with no experience. Small firms tell me they don't believe I will stick around when the economy turns up.

I just want a damn job. I spent 4 years in law school working 7 days a week, every week, to get Straight-A's. I am not saying I am entitled to anything, but I am saying that this system is fucked up where I can't even get unpaid work.

Hey Kash, wanna go on a date? I promise it will be worthwhile.

17 (and 19 to a degree):

Any student who said "That's not fair to the student" would automatically get no-offered from me.

Not to be a dick, but if you think it's about fairness or that you're not going to get a hard sell during interviews, then you still don't get it. Sorry.

Yes thank you 31. Let's do some math...

Undergrad loans: $50k
Law school loans (+ interest): $200k
Three years NOT working: $200k

Having a "prestigious" career? Priceless.

33, with your credentials you obviously have serious personality issues that are holding you back. I suggest you meet with a psychologist instead of whining on the biggest dumbfuck website on the planet.

Here is a newsflash for any deferred graduate, unemployed attorney or no-offered law student: the grim reaper has claimed your career. Your professional life is over and the only reason why you are moving is due to rigor mortis.

PLEASE POST THE TOM BRADY COMPLAINT FILED TODAY IN NY.

Sorry PE normally love it but that ... WTF?

Guys at my high school used to dates girls for months and get "no offered" all the time. It was no big deal.

I went to "the best school to have an LL.M. in TTTax"

Sucks dude! Guess you shoulda stopped studying at some point and got a job!

Wouldn't rigor mortis prevent you from moving?

33,

Sorry to hear you have such terrible interviewing skills. Have you tried applying to accounting firms? They don't care much about personality and "fit."

11, while he sounds like a colossal blowhard, is absolutely right.

The whole point of getting into this business is an unwritten understanding that, if you get into the T14 and aren't a total dunce, you get a job worth 160k a year plus benefits when you graduate. End of conversation.

To those out there who won't be getting these offers, I empathize. It isn't really the firms' fault, and we can't be blamed for what's happening in the wider economy, but nobody should be upset at people who felt entitled to these jobs. They were effectively promised to the classes of 2010 and 2011 (and probably 2012) just like they were effectively promised to the class of 1997. Most did nothing wrong; most are hard working and very intelligent (they did all get into law school). They don't deserve what's happened to them.

... of course, all of you morons trying to get into law school NOW will have absolutely no right to complain, especially if the best you can do school-wise is some TTT in the middle of nowhere. Folks, don't go to law school unless you REALLY know you want to, and for God's sake don't do it for the money.

I think PE is so "peer"ish that rigor mortis works backwards for him. He is so limber he can bend over backwards while billing AND fucking summers in the ass.

Has anyone considered that all of the threads about no offers, rescinded offers and alternative XYZ's may be contributing to this mess?

ATL, open a thread discussion your role in perpetuating the situation.

And, yes, I am several years out of a top 25 law school and continue to be employed.

18 - Who the fuck wants to work for S&C in Paris or Berlin?

Who's the hottie in the picture? An intern?

Lat,

Your strawman “entitlement” argument is a huge disservice to law students and recent grads. As you realize, law students and recent grads are your core readership. Yet, you sell them out with some phony stop-being-entitled argument.

I agree that Big Law has changed, but you put the entire burden on the law students and recent grads. What about Big Law firms? Shouldn’t they also change their mindset if you’re asking that law students and recent grads make changes? Since Big Law is a “business” (apparently the law is no longer a profession – thanks for that notice five years too late), don’t they have the greater burden to change to market conditions?

As some have mentioned above, for this change to happen law firms need to stop treating no-offers as scarlet letters. As you mention Lat, times have changed. And, it’s not just some “entitled” law students who didn’t get the memo. Law firms and judges need to get on board. Second, law firms need to stop lying during recruiting and the summer that there is an offer for everyone. Be honest. Be upfront. At least pretend to be ethical and honest lawyers. If you don’t want the negative publicity that comes with honesty – then run your “business” better. Don’t screw over students and recent graduates to cover your own ineptitude.

What a bunch of whiners!

Summers weren't the only ones who expected to get offers; employers expected them to get offers, too. Before this cycle, if you got no-offered/deferred/rescinded at your summer firm, other employers assumed you were damaged goods. That's why a no-offer used to be a kiss of death.

It's much easier to view your summer firm as a "fling" when lots of people are not getting offers and employers know that it isn't necessarily because you did something awful. Today that's the case; a year or two ago, it wasn't.

I took the money in summer '08, let my firm pay my bar expenses and summer stipend, and was not at all surprised when they rescinded my offer. No regrets.

-- unemployed grad

Does anyone else find Lat's commentary a little ironic considering the extent to which he puts Biglaw and all of its attendant inanities, useless trivialities, and boring personalities on a massive pedestal?

If people like Lat weren't constantly cheerleading Biglaw to the detriment of other sectors of the legal world, not as many law students and pre-law students would have such fantasy-based notions of what it is and what it does.

I think that the issue has less to do with a sense of entitlement and more to do with the honesty of firms in their recruitment of law students. When I was going through the 2L recruitment process I was told by more than one firm that "we only plan on taking the number summers that we believe we will be able to make offers to." This statement was always qualified by some variation of "so long as your work product is good and you aren't a social retard." If I had gone through the summer with nothing but positive reviews and didn't receive an offer at the end of it, I would be upset too. That might not be the case for the majority of the people complaining about being no-offered, but I think it rings true for a fair share.

19,

You're not wrong, but you are naive.

I'd like to highlight a particularly comic point in Lat's post:

"The primary loyalty of law firms should be to the full-time lawyers and staff members to whom they’ve already committed[.]"

Christ Lat, did you even work at a Big Law Firm? I'm too lazy to look up your bio, but believing that a law firm either does or should feel any loyalty towards its staff (to say nothing of its lawyers) suggests you've departed the land of reason. Big Law has only one loyalty: PPP. That is its one and only God, and everything else is completely irrelevant.

Loyalty to staff ... lmao.

I think the article, and some of the comments hit a few good point. 1) Law students should not feel entitled, 2) firms are businesses, and 3) no-offers should not be stigmatized.

The fundamental problem I see here, as everywhere else in the legal industry, is the lack of transparency. If firms were more honest, instead of worrying about their imaginary reputation among peers who know the behind-the-scenes gossip anyway, then nobody would complain - except for the truly entitled law students. Unless a firm falsely promises me something and keeps the truth from me, none of us are entitled to anything from them. Once that happens, however, we are entitled to complain about it - that's why we went to contracts class.

Dont go to S&C Paris unless you want to work like a dog
that being said better to work like a dog than not work
but that is S&C's most vicious office
choose london or berlin
or an australian office

58:

guys at my hi
g
h school used to write like ee cummings
aLL the tiMe it was no
b
i
g
deal

Is no one offended by the comment in the article:
"Law students today, however, are like single women over 35. "
?????
If I make a comment about Peggy Joseph (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI) I'm racist, but this type of nonsense is allowed to be called journalism.

19, pepper?

Once we unionize, the firms won't have any choice.

i am e.e. cummings
all over your girlfriends face

hey 59
i am e.e. cummings
all over your girlfriends face

59 for comment of the year.

-not 59

Is there a blog that is dedicated only to people at top 10 schools and/or top 10 firms?

A lot of this mumbo jumbo and fear-mongering really doesn't apply to a Harvard or Yale student or someone at Cravath or Sullivan.

Sure, the cream of the crop has been severely hurt as well in the recession, but a V50 partner talking about work drying up and not coming back really means nothing to the V5, nor does a Fordham grad bitching about offers mean anything to a Stanford 2L.

Call me a douchebag elitist all you want, but that still has nothing to do with my question. Lower-tiered schools and firms are quite simply facing a different environment, and I think that this blog's generalist standpoint is kind of useless.

56 - Uh, I think that's the whole point of Lat's post (tossing aside the notion of "loyalty" and emphasizing that Big Law is Big Business).

I do why people get pissed off by the whole no-offer thing. Because no firm gets their summers in the room and plays it as it lays. Only 50 percent f you are going to get offer. So, yeah. It is a competition, your assignments are all identical, and we're comparing you to not only to the summers in this room. We're comparing you to the other offices.

But nope. They try to lull summers into this bullshit country club vibe that doesn't really exist in law firms. They used to do it to bamboozle someone to spend four to six years toiling away in obscurity. I'm shocked as hell they didn't just give up the ghost this summer.

So yeah. Sorry kids. Everyone was lying to you. Welcome to the practice of big law.We really are all assholes.

Commissar Obama and Barney Frank should be proud of the change they have brought to our nation. We now have elderly bank robbers committing armed robbery in order to make mortgage payments. Barney, this is what happens when you try to create a system where every Tom, Dick and illegal alien Jesus can qualify for a mortgage to purchase a mcmansion. Commissar Obama, this is what happens when your ineffective leadership would rather make public appearances on David Letterman than try to work to find solutions to your anemic economy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32921104/ns/local_news-san_diego_ca/?gt1=43001

Hey, the miliitary is hireing! You will get quick court room experience, work less hours, get to travel, be given the possability of jumping out of planes and serve your country. The pay is good but not as good as mid law. However, you have some things none of them have! 100% free health care for your and your family, job security (let me see ANY firm give you that), a retirement you do not have to pay into, and snazzy uniforms!!!

I got herpes from an SC partner this summer. Refused their offer. HLS-2L

I got herpes from an SC partner this summer. Refused their offer. HLS TOP 5%

That women over 35 comment is sexist. I'm suing you both.

Lat, here's the problem with your analysis:

--Prior to this year, a summer associate gig was a virtual guarantee at a full time position. Right or wrong, this was the reality.

--Firms knew that things were bad in September-November, when they extended these summer offers. Lehman went down September 15--I was a V10 at the time, and believe me, there was no work then.

So why the hell did they make all these summer offers knowing business was bad? They easily could have under-hired summers and then if the economy miraculously turned around, just hired a bunch of 3Ls the next fall. In many cases, law students had multiple offers and conceivably a firm that they turned down actually had a need for them and would have extended them an offer.

So it's really just horrendous business management by these firms, and an unfortunate byproduct is hundreds of kids who are utterly screwed and may have turned down more realistic job prospects. That's why it's on the firms. They displayed such crappy business sense in extending way too many summer offers in the first place.

The correct analogy is that no-offered summer associates are like the girl who allowed a guy to buy her drinks at a bar, flirts shamelessly before handing out her phone number, and then waits forever only to realize that he is not going to call. The rage and all out effort to soothe shattered egos stems from precisely such a pussy scorned scenario. Even as top students from top law schools, you are not half as attractive to employers as you might think. New lawyers are a net loss to any firm until their third or fourth year when they have learned enough to be useful. So it makes no sense to hire anyone when the economy is bad and there is not enough work to keep your present associates occupied. It is not just the economy; it is the ECONOMICS of the business.

Although everyone knows that the economy is down, the fact remains that practically every firm has offered at least some of their summer associates a full time position. Regardless of whether or not these happy munchkins actually get to start, they were the ones deemed desirable by the people they worked with. This necessarily implies that the people who did not get offers were simply not as good. No selection process is perfectly fair, but undoubtedly a selection was made. People regarded as the best and the brightest were picked while the dregs discarded.

Is a no offer going to be an issue going forward? The answer is an unqualified yes. Even if you drift haphazardly into a contract attorney position, you will be asked by the recruiting monkey why you were not offered. And you will have to cough out that tiresome story repeated so many times that it feels almost like you can watch yourself talking when you start playback. It will dog you for the rest of your life.

For future summer associates, learn from the mistakes of this class and make sure that you go all out to deliver value to whoever butters your bread. It does not work the other way around.

Yeah, who's in the picture? She's very cute. Not hot but cute.

See diagram below:

--
-- --
-- ATL
-- the shark

2007 2008 now

Any questions?

--Freddie Bicknese

Hey, Lat, how long do you think you can maintain a website when you spend all your time talking down to your readers? You're a fucking dipshit

Why would anyone go out with a woman over 35? Fuck them, yes, but don't take them on an actual date that cost money. Just knock on their door, go in, then fuck then, then leave. Ass or cunt, doesn't matter, just leave after you've done the deed. If she fails to thank you, then you shouldn't go back again, because there are many more where she came from. Woman go to college, think they are as good as men, then go to grad school, still thinking they are as good as men, then start a job and hold off getting married and having kids, still thinking they are as good as men, then they find that they are over 35 getting fucked in the ass or cunt by a guy who gets up and leaves. The bitches should have gotten a real man in college, gotten married, had kids, then gotten fucked in the ass or cunt by a husband who gets up and leaves for a younger piece of ass. That's the real world.

The diagram above was supposed to be ATL jumping the shark, but ATL's crappy server screwed up the line breaks, spacing, etc.

Try this instead:

ATL minus Elie = SUCCESS
ATL + Elie = FAIL
You do the math.

--Freddie

It is true that the rules have changed, mid-game. And that is surely unfortunate, to say the least, for those affected. But the point of this and similar posts is to make sure everyone knows: THE RULES HAVE CHANGED. A summer associate gig is NOT a guarantee of an offer, even if you are an outstanding candidate / summer associate. Glad we're all clear on that now.

66 - failed troll. There are non-negligible numbers of Top 5 3L's that were no-offered, to say nothing of the 2L's that will not receive summer offers.

When is McDermott making offers?

I join 53's opinion. I concur to add that if ATL editors truly believe working at a law firm isn't a huge deal, they should stop running posts obsessing about Vault ,especially given how meaningless Vault generally is re the quality of a firm.

Also, the girl in the picture looks like a 13-year-old playing dress-up.

It's not terribly surprising that LaTTT and MysTTTal are no longer lawyers if this is typical of their analytical skills.

60: I agree with you. The "women over 35" comment was moronic and unnecessary. That said, I've noticed a number of posts bearing Kash's name in the byline contain snide remarks about the desirability of other women. I think poor Kashi has some self-esteem issues.

Kash is well on her way to being a "single woman over 35." She might be able to find a taker among her lame lawyer legion, but I think even they would back off when they find out that she is nowhere near as attractive as she appears to be in her True/Slant photo. Even lame lawyers can pull some pretty attractive girls, if those lawyers still have a job in this economy. Plus, Kash has actually gotten kind of chunky over the last few months.

Talking about the recession is so 2008. It isn't the same business environment as 2004-2007, but the great recession is over.

And I happen to like going out with single women over 35, especially the desparate ones.

Enough about summer offers or lack of summer offers. This is really getting boring and I'm sick of reading about it.

Something else for summers to consider... Would you rather have no offer and look for something else or join the firm and be laid off because they find out that they actually have no work for you?

79 crazy much?

59 FTW

82-- I am not disagreeing with you, but the degree is FAR less at a top 5 school.

This goes the same for top firms. The situation is just not as dire.

37: i'm in love with you.

Gee Lat & Kash, think this was patronizing enough?

90,

The latter. At least you get it on your resume, and a layoff is better than a no-offer in this climate.

Everyone keeps saying the key point is this, the key point is that.....

Actually the key point is that this diatribe was written by Kash, a chick who didn't even go to law school, and Lat, a gay dude who hasnt been at a biglaw firm for some time now.

There opinions, while well written, don't mean dick.

Everyone keeps saying the key point is this, the key point is that.....

Actually the key point is that this diatribe was written by Kash, a chick who didn't even go to law school, and Lat, a gay dude who hasn't been at a biglaw firm for some time now.

Their opinions, while well written, don't mean dick.

Lawyers are being dishonest?!? Next you'll tell me that people on Wall Street care about profits and that janitors are idiots.

this post illustrates that joining a big law firm is a lot like joining a sorority

i think this kind of evaluation process is fine for sororities, but not for a business.

i'm glad the law depression is just dawning, it'll clean up this retarded notion of paying exorbitant salaries to rookies

"Law students today, however, are like single women over 35. They’re desperate — and firms are warier of committing to them."

Yeah. When I think "desperate" the image that comes to mind is of a doughy white boy with tonsiloth breath attempting to engage my attention in a bar. But I wouldn't generalize that desperation to get laid to all men everywhere. Some men are desperate for sex, some women are wary, but I given the 40 billion people in the world who are not white frat boys, I suspect that the percentages of these individuals are not large enough to permit one to draw conclusions about all members of the male sex.

Sure, somewhere a single 35 year old probably is dreamily selecting flowers from a catalogue for an as-yet-groomless-wedding. But really, "ALL 35 year olds are desperate" and "most men are wary?" That seems unlikely.

19 here. I knew going into it that I couldn't accept what I was told at face value...

I suppose I should have more clearly articulated my point.

The firm trumpeted its "transparency." Summers met frequently with senior partners and chairpersons who claimed, frequently, that the firm was in great shape. We were told from the interview process through Day 1 of the program until the very last day of the program that the jobs were ours to lose. Only then were we, for the first time, properly appraised of the situation.

Today, I'm stuck without a job. I've been told directly by smaller firms that they won't consider me because, even if they had room, they don't think I'd stick around when the economy turns. Large firms won't talk to me because they're all up shit's creek, too.

And if I had known the situation up front... I would have taken the other job I was offered... smaller shop, but I would have had a job when I graduated. That's the shittiest part.

Anyone who claims that ATL has a pro-associate bias should remember this post.

And remember Lat's earlier post, talking down bonus expectations?

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/09/no_associate_bonuses_in_2009.php

100,

I defiled so many girls like you when I was fratting it up in Ithaca. And the fact is, you'll remember guys like me for the rest of your life.

CORNELL FRAT STUD

T-14 2L, 2nd quartile, I want to drop out but have 1.5 years worth of debt already and no way to pay it off. Do not want to work toilet law.

Cut and run and work at Starbucks, or stick it out and chase ambulances?

101 -- the problem is that you're thinking like a lawyer. That is, you're being risk-averse.

In ANY other line of work, you take what comes and you don't expect anything more. 24 year olds taking jobs at Bear Stearns in 2006 were, of course, comforted by the fact that they were going to work for a major investment banking firm that had gotten through a World War and the Great Depression unscathed. Oops. But they didn't cry about it, because that's just how the business works. I'm a few years older than you; there are plenty of people my age who dropped out of college to move to San Fransisco in the late '90's and make monopoly money working for internet startups. Eventually all those jobs dried up, and those people moved on.

Lawyers, for whatever ungodly reason, feel that certainty is a birthright. No other business does. In other industries, companies make wild promises to lure in attractive employees -- promises they know they can never keep -- just to get them in the door, and then do the bare minimum to keep them from leaving. It happens. And the guy with the MBA who got promised the world and took the job at Bear Stearns over the job at Morgan Stanley doesn't cry over spilled milk. He either starts his own investment firm, or he finds another industry.

I don't know why lawyers seem to think they're entitled to a different reality from everyone else.

105,

Bear Stearns is still a bank and most of those people still have jobs.

100-"40 billion people in the world who are not white frat boys." Demography fail. You probably went to 'Dozo and had your ass pounded by the law review editors regularly.

107,

Yes, the law review editors at Cardozo gave my ass a good rodgering.

100

106,

Bear Stearns is a subsidiary, and none of the ones I knew there still have jobs.

105.

104, there is a middle ground between Biglaw and ambulance chasing. Unfortunately, it is being rapidly filled by laid off Biglaw associates. There's simply no reason for a respectable small firm to hire first years when they can get third years with big firm experience for the price of a Craigslist ad.

By the by: my (small but respectable) firm is currently looking for an associate, and among the laid-off detritus is an absolute FLOOD of Dreier and Thacher Proffitt associates who apparently haven't had work since those firms imploded. So, good luck everybody.

desperation is a smelly perfume

33 - fuck the other commenters on this site. i just graduated from NYU as well and am in the exact same situation as you. The worst part about it is that it is basically impossible to get anyone to look at your resume for non-tax positions. It would be one thing to have gone to NYU from a shittt law school, but to have had other options one year ago and to decide to get the LL.M. really fucking stings right now.

Ok, I want to make sure I'm getting this straight.

1: You had other options a year ago.
2: You chose, instead, to get a tax LLM.
3: You don't want to work in a tax position.

You, sir, are a moron. You deserve whatever you get, and may God have no mercy on your soul.

33,

You're not getting rejected from big firms because you're overqualified. That's ridiculous. Overqualified at what? You said yourself that you have no experience. You are not overqualified.

Normally, firms like tax LLMs from NYU (I'm assuming you went to NYU). Your problem is either (1) you're getting screwed by the fact that law firms (a) are not hiring and (b) are flooded with resumes with people who have all your same credentials PLUS experience -- those guys are getting what few jobs are out there, despite being what you would call "overqualified.; or, (2) you really are a lousy interview.

Good luck. When the economy recovers, you'll be fine.

Just look at the level of self pity on this site. There are people who think that the Bear Stearns alumni are sitting pretty even though the mother ship went down. Sweet heart, you can feel better about yourself if you were never associated with Bear Stearns because people who are associated with that place are typically untouchable. Why else would everyone on the Street gang up to take down one of its oldest institutions?

There is so much limpness and wallowing self pity expressed here that it makes me sick. The best and brightest cannot get over the fact that some law firm or other did not want them. Can’t you do anything else? Are you really that useless?

Fair enough, but I REALLY wish you would stop doing posts in praise of firms that are secretly handing out no offers (cough cough). We can at the very least agree that no offers based on purely economical reasons are not a GOOD thing, right?

Getting no-offered is getting blown out of proportion. Just because you get no-offered does not mean you won't be a decent lawyer someday, it just means those offered are better lawyers now.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying about law students needing to adapt their expectations regarding their ability or "right" to get bigfirm jobs. But before you go demanding that law students reform their expectations, perhaps you should require that the law SCHOOLS, which suck up tens of thousands of their tuition dollars, reform what they promise their students.

I started law school at [then a T1 School] in the mid-90's. There was a dinner on the first night preceding orientation. One of the profs stood up at the dinner and welcomed us to [T1] Law and said how great it was to have us and, blah blah blah, and then all of a sudden my head spun around on its axis because I realized what this guy (who, iirc, would later be a/the dean - if not he was at least a big who's who on the faculty) was spouting off about: YOU ARE NOT GOING TO *BELIEVE* HOW MUCH MONEY YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE WITH A LAW DEGREE FROM THIS SCHOOL. YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE GINORMOUS DOLLARS.

I'm not kidding. He was promising every single one of us - the ones who would be at the top of our class as well as the ones who wouldn't - massive career opportunities to become CONFETTI-THROWING-RICH! just by obtaining a degree from [T1] Law.

If that has all changed then so be it. But those schools are still con-ing students into spending a small fortune on tuition with the promise of becoming exorbitantly rich upon graduation.

The changed expectations have to come from the top down.

I know people on here are generally loath to in any way associate themselves with blue-collar workers, but what this most sounds like to me is auto workers in Detroit now or steel workers in Pittsburgh 20 years ago bitching about how unfair it is that their high-paying jobs are disappearing.

The industry's changing. These Biglaw jobs are going away, and they're never coming back. Accept it, move on with your lives, and find something else to do.

19 and 61...Pepper really isn't a "premier" firm anymore in Philly....well, it never really was...at least at Penn

To the guy who said lawyers need to be more like Laid off I-Bankers, etc . . .

Your argument has a bit of merit, but for the most part, it ignores critical differences between lawyers and bankers.

First, lawyers go to law school at a very young age - often right out of college. This leads to many lawyers who are 26 years old, have never worked a "real job," and have 300,000 in debt (undergrad + law school + credit cards). Now you expect these people to just whistle along and find some job in another industry?

Second, whereas lawyers used to be more "in-demand" in other industries, that is quickly becoming less true. Large corporations do not hire nearly as many attorneys as they used to with the advent of the mega corporate firm in the 1980's. Most of their work is jobbed out. So when 26-year-old law grad, who knows nothing about anything but researching and writing the law, interviews against 22 year-old undergrad guy with a u-grad degree from Wharton or from Michigan business, the firm hires the 22 year old.

My point is simply that lawyering is a learned profession that takes year to prepare for, but business is not. Would you expect a doctor to start looking for jobs as an investment banker if the medical market turned down? Why is it so surprising that after devoting 3 years of life to law school and 200,000 - 500,000 dollars (tuition + living + opportunity cost), that people get upset when the job they've been training for disappears?

But you do make a point to the extent that law students need to start seriously at least considering alternate career routes rather than whining nightly on ATL.

Firms who haven't offered yet, you are a JOKE. Everyone knows that if you haven't given out offers then you are not on the level of the V20. There is no reason to hide from bad press, you're already getting it. All you are doing is hurting the summer associates who you have yet to offer or no offer.

AMEN to this poster! And, the reason this blog pisses me off is that, as many have noted, if I had choosen differently I wouldn't be sitting in the dark about an offer. Instead, like my classmates who chose other comparable firms in the same market, I'd have a freakin offer.

Tucker Max puts it best:

Should I get my JD? What is your advice for someone thinking about going into law school?Do you want to waste three years of your life debating stupid and utterly irrelevant minutia? Then yes, get your JD. Do you want to get a degree that allows you work the rest of your life in a tedious, shitty, unrewarding job? Then yes, get your JD. Are you a boring, facile, socially retarded whore, desperate for the illusion of money and success, regardless of the cost to your life and the lives of those you love? Then yes, get your JD. Do you want to squander your existence sitting in a lifeless office, churning out ultimately meaningless paperwork? Then yes, get your JD. Listen to me people: There is a reason that lawyers have the LOWEST job satisfaction of any profession in America. THE JOB SUCKS. It is horrible.

Look: There's not enough of anything to go around these days. That's the deal. There's not enough. And, there's too many of us. You can go on and on and on and on, but the bottom line is: there's not enough to go around any more. So those who gather round need to find another watering hole, or a way of dividing up what's there, or pray real hard for rain. Scratching each other's eyes out won't lead any of us to higher ground.

I don't think my no-offer would have bothered me so much if my firm hadn't told us at least twice a week that we were "all getting offers" unless we did something to lose it (and by "something" I mean something socially unacceptable). I never really believed the GENERAL proposition that anyone is "entitled" to a job (still don't), but because of the relationships I built this summer, I came to trust my SPECIFIC firm's representations.

If the firm had said all summer, "we can only afford to fire half of you," then I would have had alternate plans lined up for 3L fall, i.e. done OGIs again, applied for more clerkships and in more types of clerkships, and more actively pursued public service. And I wouldn't have committed myself to so many activities my 3L year in anticipation of a year-long job hunt. It would have sucked, but it would have also been really easy to just move on and learn from it.

Instead, by lying to us, my employer put a LOT of people behind the 8-ball. And they made every one of us feel like we were defective somehow when it was really an economic decision. In that respect I envy the people who knew all along their firms were in trouble. They were more prepared, job-wise and emotionally.

Personally I'm considering heading to a smaller market near home with a couple of chums and grinding it out on court appointments while we build some rep. Kind of a romantic notion, yeah, but it's better than sitting at home feeling sorry for myself.

Disgusting disgusting disgusting. Boys get married to the teachers or the social workers or the dumb-ass girls that demanded diamonds as big as their heads & those women have kids while they go off to golf or drink or churn their faked billable hours. And then some pathetic couldn't hack it in a real job, I pretend to be a journalist self-hater denigrates women over the age of 35? Disgusting disgusting disgusting.

Disgusting disgusting disgusting. Boys get married to the teachers or the social workers or the dumb-ass girls that demanded diamonds as big as their heads & those women have kids while they go off to golf or drink or churn their faked billable hours. And then some pathetic couldn't hack it in a real job, I pretend to be a journalist self-hater denigrates women over the age of 35? Disgusting disgusting disgusting.

126/127, you may as well accept your spinsterhood now. Don't worry--even without a man to provide for you, I'm sure you'll be able to afford batteries.

I agree with the other peoples who have said just don't go to law school. All the professors and stuff I talk with about oversaturation feel that people are aware of that when they get into this. I don't think they are. Not that law schools, especially lower ranked ones, are a scam. But plenty of kids definitely go into there with the wrong impression.

Law school seems to be like med school these days; you shouldn't do it for the money. This is too difficult, and you should only go into law because you love it. Unfortunately law school doesn't have 4 years of school, 2-4 years more of internship/residency (not including specialization) to weed out the greedy.

Not that theres anything wrong with being greedy. Just that the greedy will be sorely disappointed by the way law school will turn out for them and their life goals.

Let's be honest, Kash's offer rate is not low. Beggars can't be choosers. Take what you can get Kash.

126/7,

I defiled so many girls like you when I was fratting it up in Ithaca. And the fact is, you will remember guys like me for the rest of your life.

CORNELL FRAT STUD

Just so you know, both the chick in this picture and the dude in the Non-Sequiturs column are both reacting to me unleashing my mancock. That is all.

125, I hear you, but you have to recognize that that's just the way life goes -- not just in law, but anyplace. Chalk it up to a life lesson. I can't tell you how many people I know in other industries who've foregone other job opportunities because their employer made them promises they never had any intention of keeping. That's not the law firm's fault; that's just a fact of life.

One of the first lessons you need to learn out of law school is that people WILL lie to you. Or even if they're not lying, they'll spin the truth in such a way as to make you hear what they think you need to hear in order to make you act the way they want you to act. That's just life. It isn't fair, but life isn't fair. If you've got a dollar in pocket, you've got a dollar in your pocket. If it's not your pocket yet, don't assume it's going to be there, because it probably isn't going to come. Promises are great, but you can't pay the bills with promises,

126/127, get over yourself. Single (straight) women over 35 do tend to be desperate, as a general rule. The same way that single guys over 300 pounds tend to be virgins, as a general rule. In both cases, there are of course exceptions.

33 and 112 - try the IRS --> I know we are hiring. The only thing is that we hire dumb fucks who interned here as 2Ls instead of top laterals. We offered some guy a position after graduation who couldnt get a firm job as a 2L and wrote incredibly shitty memos for me. We also hired some girl from a TTT, non-NYU LLM b/c she has nice tatas.

33,

You must be the most socially awkward d-bag on the planet -- I mean, to have that resume (assuming you are even close to telling the truth..and no, Brooklyn Law does not have the best tax llm) and have no job. Judges love tax attorneys..particularly federal bankruptcy judges and those with a heavy commercial litigation docket. Biglaw would likewise be attracted to your resume -- I started with a guy at a V50 firm this fall (yes, on time), who was hired off a clerkship. Lesson: if you have the credentials, someone will find room for you. Small and midsize law - your analysis might be right there, but if you cant convince someone small boutique youre interested in joining their firm, especially a tax boutique...that's...wow, you must be special.

So, in conclusion, its not them, its you. Stop being a victim and go look for work.

112,

1. You claim you had other options a year ago.
2. You decided earn a Tax LLM.
3. You are unhappy that you are only being considered for tax jobs. That's shocking, I thought a *TAX* LLM was a great way to break into IP.

I can't decide what would make you a bigger moron, if you are telling the truth, or you are making this up.

Maybe firms are just unimpressed with your logica

I'm in the same situation 125, best of luck working shit out.

I'm the one who left the comment about buying Kash a drink and getting no offered and my point was a bit muddled. Way back in the mid 90s I was no offered at a large NY firm (the firm dissolved right after the summer ended). While I had to scramble to find a job, I was able to get something at a smaller firm (relatively speaking, it was still paying top tier dollars). It turns out that it was the best thing that ever happened, as I was very happy at that smaller firm. Ultimately, I moved on to a larger firm and post 9/11 I was laid off in a "stealth" layoff. Again, shitty situation but that's business and I went out and found another job. It took a while but I did find a job and it was a great position for the five years that I was there. Unfortunately, that firm also went out of business (last year). Again, I went out and found work and am happy.

The point of my Kash post was to distill my experience into the point that no one is owed anything and you can come up with all sorts of injustices against you if that's your inclination. My advice is to stop thinking that you are owed something just because you have put in the effort and instead focus on thinking about how you can move on with your career.

33 Here.

I fired off a quick comment earlier without elaborating. So let me elaborate.

My statements were true -- I did graduate summa from a good law school, and I did earn an NYU tax LL.M. this year. I admit that getting the LL.M. was a stupid decision rather than going into practice, but at the time I made the decision, nearly 2 years ago, it seemed like the right decision.

What is happening now is this (I should have elaborated more in my initial post):

1) Small litigation-oriented firms will not take me seriously -- they tell me I won't stick around. They are probably right, seeing as I am a "tax guy." About the only small firms that do tax work in my market (secondary market, but fairly large) are estate-planning-type shops who primarily hire family members and friends, rather than random resume submissions.

2) While Federal Bankruptcy Judges do like Tax LL.M.'s., District and Circuit Judges tend to prefer more classical "legal scholars." They see my transcript with all corporate, tax, securities, and bankruptcy courses, and they see my LL.M., and (in this market where Federal judges are all receiving 1000+ applications) they simply go to the next guy who graduated high in his class but focused on employment law, constitutional law, civil rights, or other litigation topics.

I did get a couple interviews, but both judges (District Court) spent the entire time grilling me on why I wanted to clerk, and why I decided to get an LL.M. in tax if I was so interested in "court procedure." Oddly, I did not get an interview with any of the BK judges I applied to.

3) I did not mean to imply that I am "overqualified" for Biglaw. When I said I am an "overqualified schlub" with no practical experience, I meant that most firms are looking for 3rd and 4th year attorneys with experience, not necessarily perfect grades. When I apply, I am essentially a 3L with no experience and an extra degree.

Also, I will admit it, I can be a bit socially awkward from time to time. However, every practice interview I have ever done was marked "Excellent." That's not to say I am perfect -- I certainly have my flaws. I also acknowledge that my current situation is largely a product of poor choices I made 2 years ago.

What I was trying to point out is simply that, four years ago, I could at least have found a job paying 60k with a Big-4 accounting, or a job paying 75k with some small business firm.

Currently, big firms want experience, and small firms are increasingly weary of the flood of applicants they view as "big firm snobs" who will leave once (and if) the market turns up.

Moreover, I refuse to walk into an interview and flat out lie that I want to be a litigator just to land a job.

So, alas, I sit with nothing to do. All my initial post was pointing out is that this is a "fucked up" situation -- very different from years past.

There are some great posts on here, but a lot of you are just talking past each other. In particular, there's the "lying -- that's just the way life is" crowd. Perhaps the people here don't know that people lie, and it's good that you're reminding them. I still have a job in Biglaw, but I certainly was naive when I started about how this all works, including the lying.

But enough already. People murder, too. People leave small tips for hardworking waiters. People beat their wives. People drive home when they're just a little drunk. Then they do it a couple of weeks later when they're more drunk. People move abroad and don't call their parents enough.

So yes, people commit all manner of bad acts large and small. I'd venture to guess that this has been the case for as long as human beings have walked the earth. So what? Each person still has freewill (or at least the overwhelming majority do). A person cannot control what happens to him, but he can control how he acts. How he treats others. You can write a doctoral thesis hypothethesizing an explanation for why occupied Scandinavia treated Jews in WWII differently than other occupied European countries, but varying outcomes ultimately come down to choices that individuals make. One of the Bulger brothers in Boston became a gangster, the other a successful politician. Neither result was preordained.

So if you don't think a law firm or a partner has acted badly in a particular situation, fair enough. Let the world know about it. But the idea that lying is "just the way life is" and that's all there is to say about it -- that anyone who complains about it or criticizes it or argues for a different course should just shut up ... I don't buy it. And chances are when someone breaks into YOUR house (that's just the way life is!) or wastes two hours of your time or lies to you, you're not going to say "that's just the way life is". You're going to bitch about your mistreatment and wish that people would act more honorably.

There are some great posts on here, but a lot of you are just talking past each other. In particular, there's the "lying -- that's just the way life is" crowd. Perhaps the people here don't know that people lie, and it's good that you're reminding them. I still have a job in Biglaw, but I certainly was naive when I started about how this all works, including the lying.

But enough already. People murder, too. People leave small tips for hardworking waiters. People beat their wives. People drive home when they're just a little drunk. Then they do it a couple of weeks later when they're more drunk. People move abroad and don't call their parents enough.

So yes, people commit all manner of bad acts large and small. I'd venture to guess that this has been the case for as long as human beings have walked the earth. So what? Each person still has freewill (or at least the overwhelming majority do). A person cannot control what happens to him, but he can control how he acts. How he treats others. You can write a doctoral thesis hypothethesizing an explanation for why occupied Scandinavia treated Jews in WWII differently than other occupied European countries, but varying outcomes ultimately come down to choices that individuals make. One of the Bulger brothers in Boston became a gangster, the other a successful politician. Neither result was preordained.

So if you don't think a law firm or a partner has acted badly in a particular situation, fair enough. Let the world know about it. But the idea that lying is "just the way life is" and that's all there is to say about it -- that anyone who complains about it or criticizes it or argues for a different course should just shut up ... I don't buy it. And chances are when someone breaks into YOUR house (that's just the way life is!) or wastes two hours of your time or lies to you, you're not going to say "that's just the way life is". You're going to bitch about your mistreatment and wish that people would act more honorably.

There are some great posts on here, but a lot of you are just talking past each other. In particular, there's the "lying -- that's just the way life is" crowd. Perhaps the people here don't know that people lie, and it's good that you're reminding them. I still have a job in Biglaw, but I certainly was naive when I started about how this all works, including the lying.

But enough already. People murder, too. People leave small tips for hardworking waiters. People beat their wives. People drive home when they're just a little drunk. Then they do it a couple of weeks later when they're more drunk. People move abroad and don't call their parents enough.

So yes, people commit all manner of bad acts large and small. I'd venture to guess that this has been the case for as long as human beings have walked the earth. So what? Each person still has freewill (or at least the overwhelming majority do). A person cannot control what happens to him, but he can control how he acts. How he treats others. You can write a doctoral thesis hypothethesizing an explanation for why occupied Scandinavia treated Jews in WWII differently than other occupied European countries, but varying outcomes ultimately come down to choices that individuals make. One of the Bulger brothers in Boston became a gangster, the other a successful politician. Neither result was in any way preordained.

So if you don't think a law firm or a partner has acted badly in a particular situation, fair enough. Let the world know about it. But the idea that lying is "just the way life is" and that's all there is to say about it -- that anyone who complains about it or criticizes it or argues for a different course should just shut up ... I don't buy it. And chances are when someone breaks into YOUR house (that's just the way life is!) or wastes two hours of your time or lies to you, you're not going to say "that's just the way life is". You're going to bitch about your mistreatment and wish that people would act more honorably.

As one of the nameless rabble who will probably be no-offered, I hate my prospects. I hate the fact that digging in and fighting to get something that used to guarantee that 3L year would not be burdened by stress about grades and looking for work. But I agree that there are upsides.

I agree with the character building aspects of the post by ATL, but I also think that 'character building' might occur on a macro-scale as well. A lot of the layoffs probably happened to people who felt the same sense of entitlement that the average summer assoc. feels. For this reason, I think that lawyers will fight harder for employment and view the job market more like a kill or be killed environment.

Although that might be good for character, I'm not sure if that's good for lawyers...er, lawyering...er, clients.

Damn! I would break that bubble-butt redhead in half, split her right down the middle.

I would love it if this site had constructive advice rather than the angry rants of the no-offered, overworked, and otherwise disgruntled members of the profession. As shitty as things may be, we have lives to lead and serious decisions to make about our futures. "Leave the profession" is not meaningful advice.

Why are Lat and Hill writing about this? Unless Lat and Hill start their own firm, their outlook towards no-offered law students is not going to have any effect on anyone looknig for a job.

Not getting an offer is an awful thing. It's not the end of the world, but don't be naive/pompous enough to try to play it off as a good thing, because then you will just end up making the same mistakes again.

146 - I completely agree. With the number of no-offered and laid off associates out there, it would be great if ATL did a post on what people are doing to overcome this hardship. I wouldn't mind hearing from people like 139, who apparently overcame the "stealth layoff" after 9/11 to find another legal job. I'm interviewing now, and would like to hear about what people are finding about how to best explain the situation in an interview - what works and what doesn't - among other things. We all know that being no-offered or laid-off are horrible things, and while I think that the board provides a good place for people to vent their frustrations, it would be even better if we all also talked about the process of moving on. Believe me, I would like nothing better to find a new legal job and to forget about my prior firm, but am really struggling to do so.

Baker Hostetler is opening a Chicago office Nov. 2.

I wish ATL would do a post on what practice areas those who are not deferred for life are in. Since many firms are starting some associates. I assume bankruptcy, and real estates are dead, but what about litigation, finance, IP, etc.

Also, I think it would be interesting to see if those who got no offered this summer went into work with an idea of what practice area they want, or if it was just luck of the draw of who got to work in what practice areas.

Finally, I think people need to realize that the summer is always a competition. Even if they say it isn't, it is. That doesn't mean be or be killed. It means that yes, if you work on something and do mediocre work while someone else does great work, you look like an idiot. When they tell you it's not a competition, they are liars. You are naive if you thought otherwise.

Why do law school tuitions continue to rise? From 2008-09 to 2009-10, YLS went from 44k to 46.2k; HLS went from 41.5k to 43.9k; CLS went from 44.1k to 46.3k, and so on.

Current students - your administration may offer condolences when you graduate jobless, but apparently they don't feel badly enough to realize that their tuition rate is premised on the 2007 economy.

Lat, how about some well-deserved public shaming here?

Some associates won't even bill 1000 hours this year. Who cares about summer associates? Even if they get an offer, the higher associates aren't going to delegate work. A billable hour is too precious a commodity to delegate down these days.

139 makes very good points. But there is a difference now. So many people have been no-offered or laid off that there just are not enough good positions (however you might define that) to go around.

125 here.

133: see, you've just described my default position in life. Which makes me feel that much worse that I let my guard down the way I did. You're definitely right about the lesson learned. From here on out, I work for the system first, the clients a close second, and the partners...never.

118, 151 - completely agree. Expensive school = debt = "need" for a biglaw job. Why aren't we starting where the blame really lies? Not to mention the lower-ranked, yet still expensive, schools. I'm sure a lot of you will say "just don't go!" but keep in mind that the fact that schools drastically inflate their employment stats has only really only come to light within the past few years. And the average college junior applying to law school doesn't read ATL - he reads those stats.

Here is some practical advice: a no-offer is not the end of the road. I was a no-offer from Summer 2008 going into my 3L year, and I was practically the ONLY one to be in that situation (before the deferrals started happening).

Basically I applied to every Federal Government honors program I could find, and was fortunate enough to land a job with one of the agencies. These programs pay decently well (not big law salaries), have great hours, benefits, etc.

The no-offer was no stigma whatsoever, and employers completely understood on every single interview I went on. I rarely needed to explain anything.

And YES, you can get these kinds of jobs even coming from a TTT like I did. You just have to be persistent and do the leg-work on the applications for these jobs.

It sounds cliche to say this, but you have to parlay a negative into a positive the best way you can. And you have a summer of BIGLAW under your belt which is better than 90% of the law students out there.

151 HITS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD.

The education system in the country is ridiculous. It is the only industry that is supply-driven rather than demand-driven. They dupe everyone into thinking that their product is valuable, when in fact it is not. It's not just law schools -- what job does a liberal arts degree prepare you for?

Are you kidding me, Kashmir Hill and David Lat? The biggest problem with you article has nothing to do with the Law job issue, it has to do with the fact that you are comparing law students to women over the age of 35, who you assume are desperate, and unable to keep partners. Where the hell do you get off stereotyping like that? Apparently discrimination and sexual harassment flew right over both of your heads. That analogy perpetuates seriously harmful stereotypes that have been countered since the late 19th Century, so jump into the 21st, where there's no room for misogynist assholes like you!

Single women over 35 are far from desperate - they are smart as hell.

I think it is funny when people tell law students these days to stop complaining about the job market. The vast majority of those same people were never in the top 5% of their classes, over extended with an insane amount of activities, working externships while in school, and constantly having to network just in order to be considered for an interview. They just woke up in the morning and had job offers. It is a different world for law students, and the associates who graduated from 04-06 don't realize that. Schools are much more competitive these days with higher numbers of applicants driving numbers up across the board of tier 1 schools. These associates had a relative cake walk. Unless they achieved what many of these complaining students did, they should reconsider commenting.

comparing out of work grads to single women over 35 and firms to commitment phobic men is a pathetic analogy and offensive to men and women.

a sign of your own insecurity perhaps?

Kash, let's get back to the important stuff. I'll take you out for a night on the town and won't even ask for an "offer" because, unlike these stuffy, "I deserve an offer" types, I actually like women. Call me.

118,

Then your law school dean (or professor and dean to be or whatever) was a jackass.

I attended a T1 (albiet just inside the top 50) school as well.

During our orientation week we had a lecture by professors, school officials and someone from the state bar association. The gist of that lecture was "if you're just here because you want to get rich, you're in the wrong place. It's much harder to get rich than you think it is, and you won't be happy doing it."

We then proceeded to get a story from the State Bar association president about how of all the cases he's ever worked on the most rewarding was helping some people with an adoption.

I'm two years into practice with a medium large law firm, and I wouldn't touch most family law with a ten foot pole, but the speaker had a point. Even if you are making good money, if money is the only reason you got into law, you probably won't be happy doing it.

Fuck P.E. Obama and Barney Frank did NOT cause the recession. That is all. Oh, and the "unwritten agreement" to offer a job after the summer? Worth the paper it's printed on, with apologies to Sam Goldwyn.

22 and 35-
Maybe students should know that biglaw isn't telling the truth when they recruit. Nonetheless, if you lie or misrepresent to students, you still deserve to be called a dick.

-17

I find it remarkable how non-constructive this site is. It seems like every post is about one-group of people complaining and another telling them they're wrong to complain. Is it too much to ask that a website dedicated to the legal job market actually give out some useful advice and/or information that might help people get/keep jobs?

My problem isn't that I got no-offered. Maybe it is a good thing that fewer of us summers (or former-summers) are getting offers. It will force us to work harder and when firms start discriminating more they might actually get better talent. Treating the summer experience as a "dating" period that will be followed by an actual review process to determine whether or not to give an offer might very well be the new way to go. The only issue that I have is that the firm I was at wasn't up front with us about it. Instead, they kept reassuring us that 2009 was going to be like 2008 and before. We were all but told that there would be a 90% offer rate. Then when the offer rate came in much lower than that we were all disappointed. I'm not arguing that the firm has every right to treat the summer as a dating period and not an engagement. Just be up front about it, don't tell me we're engaged when its just a fling.

Don't worry 2010 grads. Those of us that are supposedly starting in January 2010 still believe in the system and in our firms, even if we didn't go to HLS or Yale. Joking...

Me thinks this is one of the best sounding boards of late. Many points-of-view. Not too much viciousness. As for good advice, what's the use in telling people how to jimmy a lock on a door that, for now needs to stay closed? Again, there are too few jobs and way too many lawyers. Best advice is to use your wits, charm and connections to make them choose you over the hoards that surround you. As for the firms that seduced their summers with lies and promises. A horrible thing, unless it was wishful thinking? Can't believe it was ill intended from the start. Lawyers do have hearts you know, just like you.

Anyone have the contact info for the girl in the stock photo? Love me some redheads!

The fact that times have changed is all fine and good. However, I say that firms should should start rescinding offers to all of the slacker summer associates they hired in summer 2007 and 2008 that would have NEVER gotten offers in summer 2009.

Lat's got a big head now that he's a "legal rebel."

171 - isn't that what Latham did?

The women over 35 comment is extremely offensive and totally unnecessary.

Why aren't we just questioning the entire model of Big Law hiring to begin with? Hiring someone essentially based on their accomplishments up through 1L seems to me to be a bit stupid. Sure, you also get a look at these people during the summer, but it's not cheap. Moreover, that you're somehow locked in on your career path over the course of your second and third years of law school is a little absurd. It's scary, but have at least a little perspective.

Law Firms AND Law schools created the unrealistic sense of entitlement.

We need more stories on how Law schools mislead prospective students and current students about career prospects. If ATL really wants to put the screws to the system, collect information about offer rates at law schools, and then compare those rates to what the law schools advertise.

171 - In case you missed it, major law firms have laid off something like 10,000 people, or around 5,000 attorneys. Staff, associates, and even partners have been shown the door. There is plenty of pain to go around.

The real Question: Who told Ginny Weasley that pinstripe pant suits are a good idea?

160 - Perhaps you need to think about when the class of 2004 interviewed for law firm positions before spouting off about how those people just "woke up one day and had offers." They interviewed in the fall of 2002 - right as it was painfully obvious that the country was in a recession. Meaning that firms were not handing out offers left and right. I was at a top school with great grades and there was still a struggle to get offers. The summer program at my firm had been cut in half and you had better believe that we all worked to get those offers (and they still no-offered a bunch of people). I had many, many friends who were no-offered after their summer programs. I don't recall the situation being much better for the class below me (2005).

I will admit that this recession is much worse. But to suggest that the classes of 2004 and 2005 had it so great is just wrong.

Please remove comment 79.

And thanks for the inclusion of the "women over 35" comment in your article. I certainly appreciate being educated about my desperation from an online "journalist." I had no idea that I needed a man so badly. Darn, now I will have to rethink my entire existence.

Good Bloomberg story on no-offers:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=avCjq2MsxrnQ

Correct me if I am wrong, but most of the firms you are complaining about still offered about 30-50%. Therefore, it is still your fault if you got no offered. SOME people got offers, they must have just been better than you. Or related to someone.

So shut up, and realize you should have studied harder and worked harder. Or been born into a better family. Go find a job you are actually qualified for.

Damn, I knew I should have gone to medical school.

And seriously, enough with the over 35 comment. Welcome to NYC, you toothless hillbilly who believes a woman is only complete with a man. Women are more powerful in NY than most men are in your redneck town. And, no, I'm not over 35, and I'm married. So, I'm not bitter, just realistic and right.

Number 11 - ("this one goes to eleven")

"briliant" and "talented"????????????

please - most of these are 24 year olds who have never held a real job

give me a break - join the rest of us in the real world

repeat after me "I am no more special than any other law student, no matter what my mommy told me"

All women offended by Kash's stupid comment should just ignore her. She probably resents women over 35 because they get a lot more action than she ever will. I don't know what her age is, but she looks pretty close to 50 -- and an unattractive 50 at that.

I'm older than 35, have a good job, good income, own my own home, drive luxury cars and get to date reasonably hot younger men. If Kash is a 4, I'm an 8.5. I don't see my life as anything approaching desperation, but if Kash and Lat do, I'm fine with that because I don't care what they think. I wouldn't trade my life for either one of theirs.

Kash increasingly reminds me of those insecure girls who denigrate other women in an attempt to curry favor with the men from whom she desires attention.

No need to hate on other women, baby girl - your daddy really did love you. Promise.

79 -- couldn't get laid by a woman at a nursing home, let alone by a 35-year-old

185, if you don't care what they think, why are you defending yourself?

dibs on the hot ginger in the intro pic.

Am I the only one who thought the 35 comment was funny?

I love cougars.

Hey, people pay good money to hear Andrew Dice Clay make comments exactly like 79's. We got to read it for free on a website. Which is to say, at least we got what we paid for.

To no-offers: Do you really think you'd be better off if firms had trimmed the size of their summer programs and not offered you a summer job in the first place? Isn't a few months' good pay and socializing better than sitting at home doing nothing? Would it be any easier to explain to potential employers that you never got offered a summer job in the first place?

You want suggestions on how to handle your no-offer situation in interviews? Do NOT, under any circumstances, make a single negative or even slightly critical comment about your summer employer. Bitterness does not an attractive package make. Be honest, straightforward, brief, unapologetic, and positive. Smile and sit up straight. If you need to, pause and think before answering. Don't fidget. Show you can stop talking when your answer is complete and, with a calm demeanor, wait out the silence for the next question. Don't be obsequious. Prepare some responses ahead of time that subtly illustrate your optimism and work ethic.

I've interviewed hundreds of associates. The good news is that most off them are not very good at it. It won't take much preparation or effort to be a standout.

194: Thanks for reminding me of my continued amazement that Big Law thinks that smiling, peppy yes-men will make the best candidates for an inherently adversarial, detail-oriented profession.

193: I think the beef is that some firms over-hired substantially while other firms did not. So somebody who could have summered at another firm is justifiably frustrated if they wound up at a firm that ended up hiring only half the class.

Interestingly, offer rates at investment banks this past summer were pretty good. I'd estimate that 75% was the average, and half the banks are coming back looking for additional full-time people from the 2nd year MBA class. Granted, some of this is because banks hit the down cycle earlier and now should get out of it earlier, but I also think it has to do with banks refusing to over-hire interns for the summer of '09.

You hothouse flowers are a lot of fun to read. Others would view a law degree as a super business degree as well as a profession. Many of us didn't go biglaw slavery, and since my class had a 7% chance of the brass ring, what goes on with the other 93% ? None of you will ever see a real client with a problem and hopefully a fee. You have to look past the "track" and realize that "partner" means you make business, not process documents better than your cohort and spend time bad mouthing him or her to the partner who secretly views you as an expendable ferret.

197 - you make some good points but what is a hothouse flower?

No-offered at Sidley Austin Chicago. Got a 5th Circuit clerkship, am ranked second in my top 20 law school class, got 12 very strong, "above the class" evaluations at Sidley, but one really bad evaluation -- thus, no offer. Told that they worried about my time management skills because of the one scathingly bad evaluation.

Advice to next year's summers: it's better to write six memos and get six good evaluations than to work your ass off to write 12 memos if it means that doing more work could expose you to the risk of getting one bad evaluation.

131,

I hear ya. Nothing like sneaking it in the back door of a quiet Asian girl and knowing that she loved it, yet somehow she felt dirty or as if she had shamed her family or culture. That lasted for a few hours and then she realized how good it was and was calling the next day like an ass addict.