A quick word of thanks to this week’s advertisers on Above the Law:
If you’re interested in advertising on Above the Law or any other site in the Breaking Media network, download our media kits, or email advertising@breakingmedia.com. Thanks!
Last week, we asked you if deferral stipends for incoming associates are too small. The reaction was mixed. Some people felt that incoming associates should be thankful for every penny they get. Others noted that it was extremely difficult to make loan repayments off of the deferral stipend.
But many people felt that deferred associates should just go out and get a job, any job.
I had assumed that most deferred associates were already actively engaged in the process of looking for work. Not just to defray the costs of their deferment, but for a long term position in case their firm never actually allows them to start working. But then this question came into the ATL inbox:
I am emailing because I think it would be useful to deferred associates to dialogue on how we should react to the situation we are in. I have an offer at a law firm that had initially deferred incoming associates until January 2010. Now incoming associates are being deferred until later in 2010. Are incoming associates (to all firms) being foolhardy for continuing to rely on these offers? What if we are deferred again, or worse, what if our offers are rescinded? Will we look back and question why we did not look for another job sooner? Will potential other employers think we were naive for relying on the offers for so long, making our chances of finding another job less likely? Is it enough that we received job offers from prestigious, competitive firms, but in the end it did not work out; will that get us another job? These are all questions we have to ask ourselves, but it is hard to come to any answers without the benefit of knowing the future…obviously. I think it would be useful to get the industry perspective, because in the end, it the industry perspective that will dictate how our decision to wait around or not wait around is viewed.
Let’s discuss and take a reader poll after the jump.
Continue reading “Open Thread: Should Deferred Associates Be Looking for Work?”
Panelists:
Jonathan Pan, Managing Partner, NYC Office, King & Wood
Toby Myerson, Partner, Co-Head of Mergers & Acquisitions, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Puneet Arora (LLM, 2001) Principal/Partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers
Evan Jowers, Kinney Recruiting, Author of the Asia Chronicles at Above the Law.com
Francis Zou, Senior Counsel, NYC Office, Allen & Overy LLP
Nan-I Chen, Senior in-House Counsel, Barclays Capital
* Judge David Hamilton (S.D. Ind.), nominated to the Seventh Circuit, will (finally) be put to an up-or-down vote in the Senate today. [Christian Science Monitor]
* A veto for Iraq’s election law means that elections might not happen in January as expected. [New York Times]
* Speaking of things that aren’t happening in January, Obama admits that Gitmo won’t be closed by the January 2010 deadline he set for himself. Elie wants to know if he has a Restatement § 90 claim. [Washington Post]
* But at least Obama is on the case when it comes to almost $100 billion in improper payments by the federal government. Expect an executive order shortly. [CNN]
* So much for the (Linda) Greenhouse effect: Justice Kennedy is ticked off at the Times. [WSJ Law Blog]
* Judicial reform may be coming to West Virginia. [How Appealing]
* The Empire State cracks down on drunk drivers — especially those who take their kids with them. [New York Times]
Sensible shoes are for liberal chicks. Say hello to fabulous Federalist footwear!
As you may have noticed, from our two posts late on Monday night and one from Tuesday morning, we’re engaging in some after-the-fact blogging of last week’s Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention.
As in past years, the social highlight of the conference was the Thursday night banquet (black tie optional; and many availed themselves of the option, ’cause that’s how conservatives roll). The speaker at the dinner was none other than Justice Samuel A. Alito, who delivered an insightful and hilarious speech that was a delight to listen to. Just as one might say of, say, a newscast by Jon Stewart, much of the entertainment value was in the delivery — Justice Alito is so dry and deadpan, and yet his remarks make you bust out laughing.
Interestingly enough, we haven’t come across many news accounts of Justice Alito’s speech. There was also no video recording allowed at the address. So we feel we can add some value with this write-up, despite its belated nature.
There may have been some confusion over the ground rules governing reporting about the speech. From the BLT:
Justice Samuel Alito Jr. spoke to the Federalist Society [last Thursday] night, but photos of him doing so are hard to come by. That’s because photographers other than the Federalist Society’s own were barred from the event. Keith Appell, a spokesman for the Federalist Society, said cameras were prohibited by Alito’s security detail….
Kathy Arberg, the court spokeswoman, said “The justice’s policy was that the event was open to still cameras and pencil press,” and that the Federalist Society was informed of that policy before the event.
Well, photos from the event aren’t hard to come by on Above the Law. Nobody told us that we couldn’t take photographs — so we did. And, as members of the “pencil press,” we jotted down notes in our reporter’s notebook. (We left the laptop at the hotel that night.)
Check out a slideshow of our pictures, along with a discussion of Justice Alito’s highly engaging and entertaining address, after the jump.
Continue reading “The Federalist Society Annual Dinner: Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!”
Last month, we reported that UC Hastings College of Law was set to become the most expensive law school in California. Apparently, the good people at Berkeley and UC Davis took that as a challenge.
Tomorrow, November 18th there will be a meeting on the proposed budget for the California university system. The tuition numbers for law schools would be terrifying for prospective law students — if only they were able to exercise common sense.
First let’s look at the proposed tuition and fees for California residents at Berkeley and other California public law schools over the next three years:
Notice that these numbers are up from the proposal that was on the table just this past August. I can’t imagine what tuition will look like when we actually get to 2012 – 2013. By then they’ll be charging people in Euros and organ donations.
After the jump, we look at what these schools plan for non-resident students (hint, it’s obscene enough that I considered putting up NSFW warnings), and why UC administrators think students will accept the tuition hikes.
Continue reading “Law School Tuition Hikes Spread Like Wildfires in California”
* Today is the NRA’s birthday! To celebrate, I’m heading to my local gun range (it’s called “the Bronx” if you’re not from New York) where I intend to pump a copy of the Second Amendment full of hot lead. [Jew with a Gun]
* Google gets into the Westlaw and Lexis business. [The Supreme Court of Texas Blog]
* Volokh looks at some aggravating circumstances that could possibly justify why 37-year-old Sandy Binkley was sent away for 12 years for banging a 17-year-old student. I still don’t think the punishment fits the porking. [The Volokh Conspiracy]
* The Feds have the death penalty, but New York doesn’t. If Holder really wants to bomb Khalid Sheik Mohammad back to the stone age, it’ll be a tricky political situation. [WSJ Law Blog]
* What does it say when lawyers are lining up to defend Bill Belichick’s controversial decision to go for it on fourth down during the Patriots’ loss to the Colts on Sunday? It says “the amount of front runners who support teams like the Patriots, Yankees, Lakers, Celtics, and Steelers has reached epic proportions in this country. And soon the Dookies will be upon us. Everybody who did not grow up in New England needs to get off Tom Brady’s illegitimate child-having jock.” Ahh, that feels better. [Tax Prof Blog]
Ben Harper says that “what’s from the earth is of the greatest worth.” Yesterday, ex-U.S. attorney John McKay weighed in on the marijuana debate, and said that “what’s from the earth” shouldn’t be illegal.
Instructing federal agencies to ignore congressional laws is not a fix, said McKay. From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
McKay faulted Congress for failing to take initiative on the issue. It is not the place of federal prosecutors or law officers to make policy, he said, nor should the White House go it alone.
In the end, he argued, marijuana should not be lumped in with cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin as part of the war on drugs. Marijuana law, McKay said, “should look a lot more like alcohol (regulations) and a lot less like cocaine and methamphetamine (laws).”
Colorado’s attorney general agrees… when it comes to state coffers. AG John Suthers says it’s okay for his state to tax medical marijuana.
A recent Marie Claire article made us realize that this is not just a question of theoretical interest to some of you. Apparently, there are Biglaw types out there toking up! One 29-year-old corporate attorney told the magazine that pot is essential for relaxation after getting chewed out by a partner.
Continue reading “Lawyers Who Are Okay With Burning One Down (Or: Pot and the Law)“
There will be a change at the top of one of the few organizations that can help address some of the problems facing lawyers today. The ABA Journal reports:
ABA Executive Director Henry F. White Jr. has resigned after three years at the helm of the world’s largest voluntary professional membership organization. ABA General Counsel R. Thomas Howell Jr. has been named interim executive director.
Let’s take a moment to remember precisely what the ABA does. From ABA President Carolyn B. Lamm’s official statement about the resignation:
With nearly 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is the largest voluntary professional membership organization in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law.
There are a lot of lawyers that need some professional assistance just at the moment. Hopefully a fresh face will have new ideas about proactive steps the ABA can take on behalf of its membership.
ABA Executive Director Resigns [ABA Journal]
The Above the Law inbox has been on fire all morning as disgruntled (former) Schulte Roth & Zabel associates share some bad news:
Yet more lay-offs: Two groups — 13 associates so far — real estate and business transactions.
Other tipsters have used the same ominous language: “13 associates, so far.” Are there more people that are going to get the bad news from Schulte today? The firm did not respond to our request for comment, so we suppose other Schulte associates will just have to wait and see.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Before we worry about how many more pink slips might be handed out today, let’s take a moment to look at the 13 we know of that have already been let go.
Continue reading “Nationwide Layoff Watch: Schulte Gets Things Done Before the Holidays”
Last night, the WSJ Law Blog previewed a new set of law school rankings. Today, we have the full list from SuperLawyers. The magazine, in association with Minnesota Law & Politics and Washington Law & Politics, has ranked law schools based on the number of Super Lawyers they produce.
Is it a little self-serving for a magazine to rank law schools based on how many of the school’s graduates end up in its own magazine? Sure. It’s a little like US Weekly handing out Oscar nominations based on how many times a star has appeared on its cover.
But at least it is an attempt to rank schools based on graduate outcomes. The Super Lawyers Blog explains the rankings this way:
Most law school rankings look at things like bar passage rates, professor-to-student ratios and the number of books in the library, but they ignore the end product — the quality of lawyers produced. We think it’s like ranking football teams based on athletic facilities, player size and equipment without considering who wins the games.
In the real world — the world of clients and juries and judges — no one cares about your GPA or LSAT score. All that matters is how good and ethical a lawyer you are. That’s the focus of Super Lawyers.
Schools are ranked according to the total number of graduates named to the state and regional Super Lawyers lists in 2009. In the event of a tie between schools, the cumulative peer evaluation and research scores of graduates are used as tie-breakers.
They care about how “ethical” you are in the real world? Who knew?
Enough with the preamble. Let’s explore the cream of the crop, the Super Lawyers top 20, after the jump.
On Friday, we gave you a sneak peek at the new rankings being developed by the Association for Corporate Counsel. The organization is asking its members to submit reviews about the law firms they work with based on a five star system.
We told you that the ACC rankings were still a work in progress, with many firms not having enough reviews to make their rating significant.
Still, the ACC would have preferred to keep its list a secret from the general public. The ABA Journal reports:
The ABA Journal asked the Association of Corporate Counsel for comment. Media representatives pointed to an online statement and a blog post by ACC President Fred Krebs. “It is premature and inappropriate at this time to cite ‘rankings’ of law firms given the limited number of evaluations submitted thus far,” Krebs says. “The ACC Value Index is in the early data-gathering stage, and it will take time to develop a robust database.”
It seems that the ACC’s real problem is that it doesn’t want its rankings to be termed “rankings.”
Continue reading “Association for Corporate Counsel Says Its Rankings Aren’t Ripe Yet”
Our recent Career Center survey asked about compensation structure for salaries and bonuses at your firms. The results reveal that reports of the death of lockstep compensation have been greatly exaggerated: a large majority of respondents — over 75% — say their firm still pays base salaries on a lockstep scale. And despite the tough economy, over 96% of respondents expect a bonus this year.
Check out the full survey results after the jump — and visit the Career Center, powered by Lateral Link — for more on which firm has announced an end-of-year salary freeze, the latest firm to join the hybrid-lockstep compensation bandwagon, and which firm is now rescinding offers to new associates.
Full survey results, after the jump.
We’ve had a lot of evidence that prospective law students have hatched a diabolical plan to flood the legal market with fresh talent. But this graph from Most Strongly Supported tells it all:
My Lord.
Right now, I’m like Oliver Platt at the end of 2012. Shut the damn door or we’re all gonna die.
Some other observations after the jump.
* Utah college student can’t use “global warming” as a defense. Tim DeChristopher was indicted in April on felony charges for interfering with a government auction and making false representations when he bid $1.8 million for land near Utah’s national parks knowing he could not make good on the bids. [New York Times]
* ATL grammar police will hate this ruling. A misplaced modifier is not a $2.45-million mistake. “[W]hile misplaced modifiers are syntactical sins righteously condemned by English teachers everywhere, our job is not to critique the parties’ grammar, but only, if possible, to adduce and enforce their contract’s meaning,” wrote Judge Gorsuch of the 10th Circuit. [Courthouse News Service]
* Chevron sues lawyer who sued Chevron. [San Francisco Chronicle]
* LA city attorney wants $3 million reimbursement for Michael Jackson’s memorial service. [Associated Press]
* Cheering the Yarvard Crimdogs. [Yale Daily News]
* Ponzi scheme crackdown in California. [KCRA.com]
* FIU law student missing. [Associated Press]
Time to resume our lateblogging — or can we call it early-blogging, in light of the morning hour? — of the Federalist Society’s 2009 National Lawyers Convention. If you’re a conservative or libertarian lawyer (or law student), this is an event well worth attending every year. In addition to the lively and informative panel discussions (which offer CLE credit), the networking is excellent.
Here’s the next panel we attended, on a timely topic given the government’s increasing — and perhaps excessive — involvement in the national economy:
Breakdown of the Public-Private Distinction: Implications for the Administrative State
We continue our lateblogging of the Federalist Society’s 2009 National Lawyers Convention. The conversations at the conference are always interesting. As far as we’re concerned, this has to be one of the most painless ways to rack up CLE credits.
Here’s the next panel discussion that we attended:
Regulation of Financial Institutions
Over the weekend, we had the pleasure of attending the Federalist Society’s 2009 National Lawyers Convention, down in Washington, D.C. As in past years, conservative and libertarian legal luminaries were plentiful, and the panel discussions and other events were excellent.
Some folks — e.g., Josh Blackman — were liveblogging the proceedings. We’re only writing up the conference now, so you can call this “lateblogging” (both because we’re late in blogging about the conference, and blogging late at night; hey, better late than never).
This year, sadly, we missed most of the Thursday events (because of a speaking engagement at the ABA’s Law Firm Marketing Strategies Conference). The first Fed Soc panel we caught was on Friday afternoon:
Free Speech: The Fairness Doctrine
Over 3500 votes are in. Here is our winning caption:
We are not currently conducting any 3L hiring, but we will keep your resume on file as our needs change.
Despite a plethora of non-recession submissions, the economy’s dire straits continues to hold the greatest appeal for our caption contest voters. This is starting to seem like a trend.
We have good news. That is not actually an application-hoarding Biglaw office. Find out the real story behind the photo after the jump.
* Generation X = The Lost Generation? That really bites. [Law and More]
* Meep. [The Legal Satyricon]
* Outsourcing the marketing of attorneys could lead to ethical problems. [New York Personal Injury Law Blog]
* Public opinion on some hot button legal issues. [The Volokh Conspiracy]
* There are all sorts of ways unscrupulous lawyers can rip off their clients. [Business Insider]
* Did you know that today is the International Day of Tolerance? Let’s get through this quickly.
[Windypundit via Blawg Review]
In 2009, a small group of Harvard Law School students noticed an absurd monopoly in the bar prep space, held by an unchallenged leader with a non-evolving product. In response, these students teamed up with Harvard Law alumni to launch BarMax on January 14, 2010.
The mission: democratize bar prep by embracing new technologies to provide the very best bar exam review courses at a fraction of the cost normally associated with these courses.
Since then, with the encouragement of thousands of students and an unwavering commitment to their success, BarMax has established itself as a comprehensive alternative to the stagnant, over-priced status quo.
As we continue to expand, we do not want to lose sight of the basic premises that led us to create BarMax in the first place. If you are a law student who believes that there is something fundamentally wrong with being forced to take out yet another loan to pay for a $4,000 bar exam prep course, you are not alone.
Ed. note: This post is authored by Evan Jowers and Robert Kinney of Kinney Recruiting, sponsor of the Asia Chronicles. Kinney has made more placements of U.S. associates and partners in Asia than any other firm in the past five years. You can reach them by email: asia@kinneyrecruiting.com
Happy Chinese New Year! We were extremely busy the past few months, including most of our US based team working from our Hong Kong offices during November and December.
As a follow up from our recent post, which listed our 62 US associate and counsel placements in Asia last year (vast majority in HK / China), please note that thus far in January ’12, we have already made seven US associate and counsel placements in Asia. This is an especially impressive number, considering the biglaw lateral hiring market in Asia is down right now (see state of the market brief overview below). These new placements are of new hires in Hong Kong, Beijing and Shanghai, who were interviewing with their new firm for a month or more and they are spread out among different practice areas, including project finance, litigation, fund formation, M&A and cap markets. We are close on four additional new associate placements, in Hong Kong, Tokyo and Shanghai, that we expect to close soon. We do not discuss partner placements in these articles, but the pace of partner recruitment in Asia (a large part of our business) has continued.
Hedge Fund In-House Openings in Hong Kong
We are seeing a small run of new in-house openings in Hong Kong at hedge funds. We are currently filling three different in-house positions at three different hedge funds in Hong Kong, two of these searches we are handling on an exclusive basis. All three will most likely be filled by a US associate, with about 4 to 6 years of experience. Mandarin not required. Candidates from NYC and London will be considered, but at one of these funds the new hire will likely come from Hong Kong / China or Singapore (with HK being the strong preference).
Please feel free to reach out to us at asia@kinneyrecruiting.com if you are interested in these hedge fund openings. As you probably would expect, the competition for these spots will be fierce and the funds will be very selective when choosing which candidates to interview.
