Too much ignorance among lawyers?

[UtahDan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/fa...lawyer.html?em

This NYT article chronicles the shock waves that appear to be traveling through young big law associates and law students as the reality sinks in that law is, in fact, a business and law firms have to deliver value to clients, particularly in tough economic times. Apparently, it was not previously well known that the practice of law is not just something you show up to every day and walk home with bags full of money.

I think that teaching lawyers about the realities of the business of law is something that law schools should get focused on because apparently it is not well understood by many of its young practictioners. I'm curious to know from those of you in big law (I know we have both partners and associates here) whether associates are sheltered from the economic realities of the business and if so why. It certainly sounds to be from reading this article that lot of the whinyness results from ignorance.

One of the strangest comments in the article was from a young associate who says "I would love to leave but there are no in house jobs so there just isn't anywhere to go." I would be willing to bet that if you added up all the big law jobs plus all the in house jobs it would be less than 10% of all the attorneys in this country. Could be less than that. I know that all new grads are like children in a lot of ways and just have to learn, but I don't ever remember being this insulated from reality.

[TripletDaddy]

the article isnt very well written, imo.

the first paragraph sets the tone. I can't think of many partners that advanced through the partnership track because they were handsome. Ultimately, you need to be able to bring in business and build the book. Now, if being handsome is a means to doing that, then fine, but the article suggests that de facto partnership is a result of simply hanging around and wearing cool clothes. The reality from the very beginning is that if you can't make rain, you are going to have a hard time making partner. I also believe that the reality from the beginning is that most associates do not go on to be partner...and the associates know this.

A couple of paragraph's down:

In fact, “The Deep End” was conceived in 2007, that halcyon era of $160,000 starting salaries and full employment even for law grads who had scored in the 150s on their LSAT’s.

Do firms even ask about LSAT scores in job interviews? I've never heard of that.

Law schools could definitely be more practical in the course loads....classes on billing, the economics of partnerships, etc. But for the most part, this is one of the oldest professions around. I wonder if it is the average applicant that has changed, not the legal methods.

The comments in the article seem to focus strictly on money. Kids wanting to graduate and buy houses at 23. the quote you referenced above about nothing beyond in-house and big law seems to be a reference to a wage scale, not a literal dearth of employment (although currently, at 10%+ unemployment, it actually would be hard for a new associate to find any work...what are they skilled at doing?)

Anyhow, the entire country has been hit by this economy. Lawyers are not immune. But it trickles down at different rates in different industries. Legal is now feeling the pain that retail and travel/tourism started feeling a couple of years ago. But this article is a bit on the poo side, imo. Could have done a much better job.

[UtahDan]

the article isnt very well written, imo.

the first paragraph sets the tone. I can't think of many partners that advanced through the partnership track because they were handsome. Ultimately, you need to be able to bring in business and build the book. Now, if being handsome is a means to doing that, then fine, but the article suggests that de facto partnership is a result of simply hanging around and wearing cool clothes. The reality from the very beginning is that if you can't make rain, you are going to have a hard time making partner. I also believe that the reality from the beginning is that most associates do not go on to be partner...and the associates know this.

A couple of paragraph's down:

Do firms even ask about LSAT scores in job interviews? I've never heard of that.

Law schools could definitely be more practical in the course loads....classes on billing, the economics of partnerships, etc. But for the most part, this is one of the oldest professions around. I wonder if it is the average applicant that has changed, not the legal methods.

The comments in the article seem to focus strictly on money. Kids wanting to graduate and buy houses at 23. the quote you referenced above about nothing beyond in-house and big law seems to be a reference to a wage scale, not a literal dearth of employment (although currently, at 10%+ unemployment, it actually would be hard for a new associate to find any work...what are they skilled at doing?)

Anyhow, the entire country has been hit by this economy. Lawyers are not immune. But it trickles down at different rates in different industries. Legal is now feeling the pain that retail and travel/tourism started feeling a couple of years ago. But this article is a bit on the poo side, imo. Could have done a much better job.

Oh I agree, it is not well done, but that was why I asked if it matched reality for those involved. Of course you are right that you have to make it rain, but I don't think most new lawyers have any idea how to do that nor can they really in a lot of settings because (1) they have little or no client contact and (2) as you say, they don't have any skills anyone cares about.

There is a fair amount of thought out there that the economic recovery will only help our industry so much because there is a systemic over-supply of attorneys. Something like 50K start law school each year. I have thought for a long time that there are far too many law schools and that there is just an assumption that they will all find jobs, but that isn't the truth and has become much less true. I wonder whether there isn't some contraction happening here that is natural and healthy for the industry.

[TripletDaddy]

being client facing doesnt serve much of a purpose at first. it is one thing to simply tag along at meetings, but new associates know little to nothing. they can't answer technical questions and generally lack executive presence. A CFO or CEO isn't going to want to talk to a second year and doesnt have much backstory to handle many common issues that arise with billing.

not sure how these issues of book building, networking, etc can be resolved at the law school level.

i do agree that this economy will thin the herd a bit through natural selection.

[UtahDan]

being client facing doesnt serve much of a purpose at first. it is one thing to simply tag along at meetings, but new associates know little to nothing. they can't answer technical questions and generally lack executive presence. A CFO or CEO isn't going to want to talk to a second year and doesnt have much backstory to handle many common issues that arise with billing.

not sure how these issues of book building, networking, etc can be resolved at the law school level.

i do agree that this economy will thin the herd a bit through natural selection.

Your shift key is sticky or maybe broken.

Think of some of the useless and inane classes offered in law school; you could easily do a "the business of law" class. I can think of lots of things that would go into it.

I know we will never reinvent the wheel, but the relative uselessness of new lawyers (I was no exception) makes me think that an "aprenticeship" model more like what doctors do would make more sense. I have no clue how you would implement that though. Of course, when "reading" for the bar was the norm, that is exactly what most lawyers did.

[LA Ute]

the first paragraph sets the tone. I can't think of many partners that advanced through the partnership track because they were handsome. Ultimately, you need to be able to bring in business and build the book. Now, if being handsome is a means to doing that, then fine, but the article suggests that de facto partnership is a result of simply hanging around and wearing cool clothes. The reality from the very beginning is that if you can't make rain, you are going to have a hard time making partner. I also believe that the reality from the beginning is that most associates do not go on to be partner...and the associates know this.

You are spot on. I have found that "external people skills" are critical to success in a law firm, and I don't mean just being slick or smooth or a good salesman. The most successful, highly-regarded lawyers I've ever known are those whose clients feel they (the lawyers) care about their problems and understand their business. I am sure you have seen what I am talking about. I am generalizing, of course; there are far too many jerks who become successful biglaw partners. But the ones who truly make a mark are more than jerks.

Do firms even ask about LSAT scores in job interviews? I've never heard of that.

It is completely foreign to my experience, and I've had the dubious fortune of doing a lot of associate recruiting.[/QUOTE]

Law schools could definitely be more practical in the course loads....classes on billing, the economics of partnerships, etc. But for the most part, this is one of the oldest professions around. I wonder if it is the average applicant that has changed, not the legal methods.

Ding-ding-ding-ding! I don't think the business of law can be taught conceptually. It would be good to alert law students to what they will be looking at if they are in private practice, but you have to "be there" to learn it. Besides, and this is not meant in a petty way, most law professors have no idea about such things from a practical standpoint.

The current generation of law students is indeed different in their expectations. Lots of this is good, lots of it is bad. I think that anyone who asks a broad range of biglaw partners about this will get pretty much the same answer.

[UtahDan]

You are spot on. I have found that "external people skills" are critical to success in a law firm, and I don't mean just being slick or smooth or a good salesman. The most successful, highly-regarded lawyers I've ever known are those whose clients feel they (the lawyers) care about their problems and understand their business. I am sure you have seen what I am talking about. I am generalizing, of course; there are far too many jerks who become successful biglaw partners. But the ones who truly make a mark are more than jerks.

This must be one of the differences between big law and the rest of us. I don't know how I would last for five minutes if my clients didn't think I cared about them and was invested in them and their problems. I have to market myself all the time and have found that pounding the table with the client is every bit as important as giving them good work and value. Maybe some larger clients expect their counsel to be impersonal?

Ding-ding-ding-ding! I don't think the business of law can be taught conceptually. It would be good to alert law students to what they will be looking at if they are in private practice, but you have to "be there" to learn it. Besides, and this is not meant in a petty way, most law professors have no idea about such things from a practical standpoint.

I think you are right to a degree. But I still maintain that we turn out a lot of lawyers who don't have the first idea about how a business is run that would benefit from a primer. And yes, it would have to be taught by a practicing adjunct.

[LA Ute]

Maybe some larger clients expect their counsel to be impersonal?

I didn't mean to say that. As you know, clients hire lawyers, not law firms, and even large companies with big in-house legal departments hire lawyers they trust. The engagement is made by a human being (e.g., V.P. Legal) who has to talk to another human being and hire the firm that way. It's a very human thing at all levels. But in BigLaw, the lawyers not in communication with the client (associates, usually) can often see the client as an abstraction. It's a problem, and blame for it can be spread around.

I think you are right to a degree. But I still maintain that we turn out a lot of lawyers who don't have the first idea about how a business is run that would benefit from a primer. And yes, it would have to be taught by a practicing adjunct.

We agree, you just said it better than I did.

[YOhio]

The law as business type classes are being pretty aggressively pushed at the lower-tier schools. It has much to do with the practical reality that Big Law doesn't come to those schools looking for associates, so a pretty significant number of 4th Tier grads will start out in a solo or small practice.

[All-American]

I think law firms should indiscriminately throw as much money at law school students and new graduates as they can. It seems the best thing to do.

[UtahDan]

We agree, you just said it better than I did.

That is a remarkably kind way of saying "quite quibbling with me, I've forgotten more than you know."

[wuapinmon]

My cousin graduated from law school in June and passed the bar on his first try. He currently has a tiny office in downtown Newnan, Georgia where he is "practicing" law. He didn't bother to apply with any firm because, as he put it, "I'm not the kind of guy they're looking for." He will be a successful attorney. It's in his genes. My grandpa founded this firm in 1952, fresh out of Emory Law on the GI Bill. He was a butcher all through law school.


My cousin does anything legal to make money. Get the pun?