[Hat Tip to commenter "Onions" for the post's title]
Adam Cohen writes an editorial in today’s New York Times about our favorite subject: us.
Oh, and there’s a bunch of stuff about that other thing we write about: cracks in the BigLaw model. He’s predicting a contraction in the gap between BigLaw salaries, on the one hand, and government and public-interest work, on the other. And the gap won’t be narrowing by rising salaries at the low end; he predicts many firms will finally give up on trying to pay at the top of the market and will reduce salaries. According to one source, salaries could drop as low as $100,000. If I’m remembering correctly, salaries didn’t break $100,000 for first years until 1998 or 1999, so that would be about a ten-year rollback.
More from the Times and Denver Post after the jump.
Cohen begins
The economic downturn is hitting the legal world hard. American Lawyer is calling it “the fire this time” and warning that big firms may be hurtling toward “a paradigm-shifting, blood-in-the-suites” future. The Law Shucks blog has a “layoff tracker,” and it is grim reading. Top firms are rapidly thinning their ranks, and several — including Heller Ehrman, a venerable 500-plus-lawyer firm founded in 1890 — have closed.
Cohen also thinks law-school tuition will have to drop, citing Northwestern as an example, and the schools will have to re-think their curricula.
First, Northwestern isn’t a panacea. Is it really better to finish law school in 2 years by studying through the summers than to get actual experience in a firm? That remains to be seen, but I’m skeptical. Plus, from a purely financial perspective, in the BigLaw context, that second summer pretty much pays for the third year of law school anyway. Granted, BigLaw summers are an option available to an increasingly small number of students, but for them, it’s clearly a huge benefit.
As far as adapting the curricula to provide better skills, I’m all for that. But what Cohen didn’t address, and probably should have, is that there are just too many law schools right now.
The Denver Post takes a look at the effects on its local firms. Citing some of our numbers, Andy Young writes
Several national firms with offices in the Denver area, such as Faegre & Benson, Ho gan & Hartson and Cooley Godward Kronish, went through attorney or staff cuts in the first quarter as layoffs accelerated.
He also writes that Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck will be stopping 401(k) match and conducting layoffs this month. Other Denver firms like Holme Roberts & Owen have had layoffs as well. Interestingly, the number of registered lawyers in Colorado is up 6% from last year to 22,668. The city also has “more than 50 large firms that have 20 or more attorneys.”
Related posts:
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
C'mon, LawShucks, you really think there is irreplaceable value to those 1st and 2nd year summer experiences? A new lawyer would learn the same things, if not much more, in a couple months of solid practice. ____And you forget that, even though that 2nd summer salary covers a lot of the tuition and expenses for the third year (it certainly doesn't come close to covering all of the cost nowadays), another year's income is lost while you're forced to listen ad nauseum to lectures.____Finally, while some may enjoy their third year, and while some may even study hard and learn from their third year, is it really necessary, anyway, as a matter of education?
Fair points. I completely agree that there's entirely too much bloat in law school. There's no reason it can't just be done in two years like B school. Third year of law school with an offer in hand was one of the best times of my life – so yeah, that was an unreplaceable experience. The classes were a joke (see above), I had a job offer lined up, etc. Still, I've never gotten a whole lot of value out of the majority of classes I took my last two years. I also think it's important to get some practical experience before graduation. In the Law Shucks perfect world, law schools would require some experience prior to admission, the 2nd year curriculum would focus on much-more practical training (again, using something like the business school case-study method) and it would be a 2-year program with a summer break.
Amen. Good ideas. I'd like to see it reduced to one year plus a required one-year internship. But two years is certainly far better than three – and also much less of a burden on the whole economy.
C'mon, LawShucks, you really think there is irreplaceable value to those 1st and 2nd year summer experiences? A new lawyer would learn the same things, if not much more, in a couple months of solid practice. ____And you forget that, even though that 2nd summer salary covers a lot of the tuition and expenses for the third year (it certainly doesn't come close to covering all of the cost nowadays), another year's income is lost while you're forced to listen ad nauseum to lectures.____Finally, while some may enjoy their third year, and while some may even study hard and learn from their third year, is it really necessary, anyway, as a matter of education?
Fair points. I completely agree that there's entirely too much bloat in law school. There's no reason it can't just be done in two years like B school. Third year of law school with an offer in hand was one of the best times of my life – so yeah, that was an unreplaceable experience. The classes were a joke (see above), I had a job offer lined up, etc. Still, I've never gotten a whole lot of value out of the majority of classes I took my last two years. I also think it's important to get some practical experience before graduation. In the Law Shucks perfect world, law schools would require some experience prior to admission, the 2nd year curriculum would focus on much-more practical training (again, using something like the business school case-study method) and it would be a 2-year program with a summer break.
Amen. Good ideas. I'd like to see it reduced to one year plus a required one-year internship. But two years is certainly far better than three – and also much less of a burden on the whole economy.
While it's true that the third year (and quite possibly the second year) is just garbage, the recruiting schedule kinda requires that there be one.
Typically, the recruiting schedule goes like this:
- After 1L grades come in, people start interviewing late summer/early fall for summer associate at BigLaw for after their 2L year.
- Summer Associate happens after 2L year.
- Kids goof off 3L year.
There would need to be some shift in that timeframe. Either: 1) summer associate positions are between 1L and 2L years or 2) immediately after the summer associate position after 2L, the kids take the bar exam, and then enter into the law firm.
The problems with that are:
Option 1 is too compressed of a time table. It's hard to get your 1L grades, then interview, then have the firms choose their picks, and then have the summer associate position start. I mean, I guess the summer associate position could start in early July and it wouldn't matter since some firms are shortening their summers anyway. But you'd need at least until mid-June for the interview process to work itself out.
Option 2 is a little bit more interesting, but you'd need the summer to study for the bar. So if you're doing the summer associate thing after 2L, when will you study for the bar?
The best option I can see is for law school to be 2.5 years. Summer associate happens between 2L and 3L. Then 3L is only half a year til Dec. Then you can study for the bar in Jan and take the Feb bar. Otherwise, 3L is a full year. Also, 2.5 years gives students three semesters to possibly do externships or clinics or whatever to get some experience. I did an externship in my 3rd year. Many of the externships from my school required some type of elective class. (for example, mine was environmental focused. I took Environmental as a 2L and then got the externship fall 3L. Others included things like working for the SEC or NLRB or IRS which required classes in securities or labor or tax.) Maybe it would be doable to have 2Ls take those courses in fall and then rush for interviews and the externships start in spring. But I'm not sure how doable that is.
In the end, i think the 3 year structure will stay. Possibly a 2.5 yr one.
While it's true that the third year (and quite possibly the second year) is just garbage, the recruiting schedule kinda requires that there be one.
Typically, the recruiting schedule goes like this:
- After 1L grades come in, people start interviewing late summer/early fall for summer associate at BigLaw for after their 2L year.
- Summer Associate happens after 2L year.
- Kids goof off 3L year.
There would need to be some shift in that timeframe. Either: 1) summer associate positions are between 1L and 2L years or 2) immediately after the summer associate position after 2L, the kids take the bar exam, and then enter into the law firm.
The problems with that are:
Option 1 is too compressed of a time table. It's hard to get your 1L grades, then interview, then have the firms choose their picks, and then have the summer associate position start. I mean, I guess the summer associate position could start in early July and it wouldn't matter since some firms are shortening their summers anyway. But you'd need at least until mid-June for the interview process to work itself out.
Option 2 is a little bit more interesting, but you'd need the summer to study for the bar. So if you're doing the summer associate thing after 2L, when will you study for the bar?
The best option I can see is for law school to be 2.5 years. Summer associate happens between 2L and 3L. Then 3L is only half a year til Dec. Then you can study for the bar in Jan and take the Feb bar. Otherwise, 3L is a full year. Also, 2.5 years gives students three semesters to possibly do externships or clinics or whatever to get some experience. I did an externship in my 3rd year. Many of the externships from my school required some type of elective class. (for example, mine was environmental focused. I took Environmental as a 2L and then got the externship fall 3L. Others included things like working for the SEC or NLRB or IRS which required classes in securities or labor or tax.) Maybe it would be doable to have 2Ls take those courses in fall and then rush for interviews and the externships start in spring. But I'm not sure how doable that is.
In the end, i think the 3 year structure will stay. Possibly a 2.5 yr one.
I am currently a third year at a private law school that is expensive to say the least. I currently have an offer from a law firm, but decided I should try to make my third year useful. After working as a summer associate during 2L summer, I realized that I need to learn and improve the skills that practicing law actually requires (especially in my firm). So I took courses that provide some practical training such as advanced writing and civil pretrial litigation. Still, a number of my classes are just unit fillers or casual interests, and provide little value to me as a future lawyer.
While I know third year with an offer can be a fun experience, my thought process always turns to my debt. My third year adds a significant amount of debt to what is already an overwhelming total. My time and money could be spent more productively, and I am a proponent for change in the law school system.
My ideas, while not refined, would accommodate the scheduling issue another poster mentioned for the recruiting process. Additionally, they may help alleviate the complaints of many law firms that students are not properly trained and require long periods of training (and lost billable hours).
Essentially, my idea is stolen from the model used in other countries. The first two years are filled with the core classes that bind most law schools and end up on the bar exams. The third year is spent out of school (so no additional debt) as a legal intern. Ideally, students have an idea of what type of law they are interested in at this point and seek internships in those areas. Regardless, students gain a significant amount of practical experience, and get the chance to work and be tutored by real attorneys. I can affirmatively say the most valuable part of my law school experience was the clinic and externship I did, which provided real-world experience and the chance to work closely with practicing attorneys.
If the third year provided this sort of experience, it could cut down student debt (allowing more students to enter public law), cut down on the training of new associates (more money for employers), and provide an additional forum for recruiting and training young lawyers on the cheap. Other countries (some in Europe and Australia) utilize a similar system to great success.
I'm with you. We need internships instead of lecture after useless lecture.
Look at the Canadian model: 3 years in law school, plus a mandatory internship year ("articling"), before being allowed to practice. The problem is, in BigLaw, the internship year is spent doing research or other semi-mindless tasks, that don't really develop the skills that a person needs to be a good lawyer, It was intended to prepare new grads to practice law, but it doesn't. No reaon to think it would be any different if you stated doing it in the US.
I am currently a third year at a private law school that is expensive to say the least. I currently have an offer from a law firm, but decided I should try to make my third year useful. After working as a summer associate during 2L summer, I realized that I need to learn and improve the skills that practicing law actually requires (especially in my firm). So I took courses that provide some practical training such as advanced writing and civil pretrial litigation. Still, a number of my classes are just unit fillers or casual interests, and provide little value to me as a future lawyer.
While I know third year with an offer can be a fun experience, my thought process always turns to my debt. My third year adds a significant amount of debt to what is already an overwhelming total. My time and money could be spent more productively, and I am a proponent for change in the law school system.
My ideas, while not refined, would accommodate the scheduling issue another poster mentioned for the recruiting process. Additionally, they may help alleviate the complaints of many law firms that students are not properly trained and require long periods of training (and lost billable hours).
Essentially, my idea is stolen from the model used in other countries. The first two years are filled with the core classes that bind most law schools and end up on the bar exams. The third year is spent out of school (so no additional debt) as a legal intern. Ideally, students have an idea of what type of law they are interested in at this point and seek internships in those areas. Regardless, students gain a significant amount of practical experience, and get the chance to work and be tutored by real attorneys. I can affirmatively say the most valuable part of my law school experience was the clinic and externship I did, which provided real-world experience and the chance to work closely with practicing attorneys.
If the third year provided this sort of experience, it could cut down student debt (allowing more students to enter public law), cut down on the training of new associates (more money for employers), and provide an additional forum for recruiting and training young lawyers on the cheap. Other countries (some in Europe and Australia) utilize a similar system to great success.
I'm with you. We need internships instead of lecture after useless lecture.
Look at the Canadian model: 3 years in law school, plus a mandatory internship year ("articling"), before being allowed to practice. The problem is, in BigLaw, the internship year is spent doing research or other semi-mindless tasks, that don't really develop the skills that a person needs to be a good lawyer, It was intended to prepare new grads to practice law, but it doesn't. No reaon to think it would be any different if you stated doing it in the US.
I still think a big part of the problem is the people who are going straight from college to law school. Get rid of them, require some practical experience before starting law school. Too often it's just a refuge for people who don't know what they want to do, so they extend the time in the educational womb.
If it's a 2 year program, you can do interviews in the spring or even after 2nd semester grades are in (forces the profs to accelerate grading, though), but with shorter summer programs anyway, there's plenty of time. Plus, when you're only considering candidates who have worked before school, that's a better indicator than 2 years of law school grades.
True. It's surprising, frankly ,that all the "Top 100 Law Firms" have put up with all this nonsense. They bear the burden of training these students once they graduate, and often at a significant loss (since many students don't stay at big law firms long).
I still think a big part of the problem is the people who are going straight from college to law school. Get rid of them, require some practical experience before starting law school. Too often it's just a refuge for people who don't know what they want to do, so they extend the time in the educational womb.
If it's a 2 year program, you can do interviews in the spring or even after 2nd semester grades are in (forces the profs to accelerate grading, though), but with shorter summer programs anyway, there's plenty of time. Plus, when you're only considering candidates who have worked before school, that's a better indicator than 2 years of law school grades.
True. It's surprising, frankly ,that all the "Top 100 Law Firms" have put up with all this nonsense. They bear the burden of training these students once they graduate, and often at a significant loss (since many students don't stay at big law firms long).