<p>Law Firms are creating 2-Tiers Pay structures for associates-which pay 1/2 of what partner track associates are paid!!</p>
<p>At Well-Paying Law Firms, a Low-Paid
Corner The nation’s biggest law firms are creating a second tier of workers, stripping pay and prestige from one of the most coveted jobs in the business world.</p>
<p>Make no mistake: These are full-fledged lawyers, not paralegals, and they do the same work traditional legal associates do. But they earn less than half the pay of their counterparts — usually around $60,000 — and they know from the outset they will never make partner. </p>
<p>thanks for posting the article. I just made mention of it in another thread- but wasn’t able to link it. Found it very interesting and thought it worthwhile for everyone to see. Just did an e-mail to my d and told her about article too-</p>
<p>My DH happens to be doing some IT consulting at a large, now internationa lawl firm. They mentioned that in the past several years they have added maybe a handful of partner track attorneys , but over 300 of the contract attorneys, at a relatively low pay and no benefits.</p>
<p>thanks jym- I wanted to link the NY times article to the other thread- but they’ll all figure it out.<br>
I think what this article was saying is that Orrick and other firms are treating these associates with respect (so assume full benefits and good working conditions) - but they are just not paying them the big bucks nor are they expecting them to work 80-90 hours a week. This might work in Wheeling W. Va or Akron Ohio- but I don’t know how well it will play out in NY-DC-LA etc.
It just seems that a 2 track partner system may be emerging. For those who savor a fairly normal life style and would be content with a solid staring salary, this may be a good route to consider. $60,000 may go a long way in Wheeling W. Va.</p>
It may – unless you are also making payments on $100,000+ worth of law school debt, which is not unusual for new JDs. </p>
<p>There is nothing wrong with working for a middle-class salary in a second-tier city. But if that’s the new economic model for lawyers, then maybe we need a new economic model for law school. It may not make economic sense to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in a JD degree that leads to a $60,000 annual salary. </p>
<p>There’s nothing wrong with a job that pays $60k–that’s quite good by most people’s standards–unless you had to take out six figures plus in debt to get that job. THAT is the problem.</p>
<p>Ya thats not surprising given that there is an over supply of lawyers at all levels in the usa. What else do you expect, high wageswith an abundant supply of lawyers, it makes no sense. Why if I run a law firm does it benefit me to only hire 50 students a year when I really need 100, and there are lots of equally good candidates who can do the work just as well. It makes no sense. It would make sense I higher more candidates and pay them all less, its not like they have a better choice anyways. Sure there are a few super candidates who can really stand out and impress clients or argue well in a court room, but the reality is these people are so rare that it makes no sense to construct your hiring practices around super candadites (i. think johnny cochrane good). The law is fairly construct and standard. Most lawyers are of equal talent, some are more lazy, but that doesn’t make them bad lawyers it means they are too lazy to do a good job.</p>
<p>With regard to the recent NYT article, note that both young attorneys mentioned attended T14 law schools. The guy who went to Northwestern, taking on who knows how much debt, is starting off at only $60,000 a year as a permanent associate which is about what an experienced legal secretary would make in many markets. The young woman went to UVA and may very well have been on a partnership track, but she voluntarily stepped off at about the 7 year mark for personal reasons. Again, seven years as an associate may not be enough to pay off the astronomical loans so many kids are taking out these days. The moral of the story is that no one should be taking on six figure debt to attend law school unless they are toward the top of their class at a highly ranked school at the end of their first year. Of course, there is a bit of a sliding scale in terms of position in the class depending on the school, but these two were both from T14 schools. Applause to Senator Boxer for demanding that the ABA step up and do their job in terms of law school employment transparency.</p>
<p>Who in their right mind takes out six figure loans for law school and expects it all to be ok after graduating? $100,000+ is a huge amount people. Remember the day, when we were kids, when we asked someone to spot a $1 and thought that was a lot. Now, it’s $100,000+ and we want to make it seem like it’s nothing. The bottom line is, if you needed to borrow $100,000+ for a law school, it means that you are going into a “reach” law school and won’t do as well as if you went to a law school that offered you money. I spoke to lawyers who run great law firms about job applicants that come from prestigious law schools. They told me that prestige does not really matter as much as what you did during law school. If you come from top 5 and are ranked top 25% with decent EC but are in competition with someone from top 20, ranked in top 5% and good ECs, you’re gonna be out of luck. </p>
<p>This new two-track system is just a hint of how law firms feel. It’s not about where you come from, it’s about what you can do. No one cares if you come from the best law school in the universe if you can’t perform as well as someone from the worse law school. If you can perform, I’m sure you won’t have any problems on the partner track.</p>
<p>college freshman- virtually everything in your post is incorrect except that 100K is a lot of money to borrow. If indeed you are a college freshman and plan to go to law school I encourage you to read everything available about law school and legal careers. And the notion that good EC’s in law school will trump the quality of your school is an absolute canard. Law Review- good EC. Editor of the Law Review- even better EC. Everything else- just table stakes. And in fact- it doesn’t matter if you can perform on the partner track, as you state- if you can’t get hired in the first place.</p>
<p>I just don’t get it. I’m not saying that taking 100k+ is not common. I’m just saying that if everyone jumped off of the bridge and died, it wouldn’t make jumping off of the bridge to your death ok. Likewise, if a lot of people take out 100k+ in loans to go to law school, as you guys have argued, it does not make taking 100K+ for law school ok. To complain about law firms not molding their practices because you might have 100k+ in debt is absurd. The only reason I would take out 100k in loans for law school is if I KNEW that I would do very well and would end up with a job to pay it off. Otherwise, no thank you. I’ll go to a decent law school without the debt, do very well and build up from there.</p>
<p>These arguments remind me of the ones I heard in the recent recession. All those people who took out loans without being sure if they could repay them in the future ended up not being able to repay them and their belongings (i.e. house) were taken away. Then they had the nerve to say, “I could not pay it back so I should be helped out.” I’m not saying that everyone did this but it was the gist of the recession.</p>
<p>I mean no disrespect, but here in America there is way too much of a sense of entitlement. All those people demanding that something be done because they made poor fiscal decisions thought that they were entitled to live the lives they had. The sad part is that a lot of people who lost their house and such got it back or at least got back on their feet but God forbid we now take a bit of money from the people that got back on their feet to feed and cloth the homeless who NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO BEGIN WITH. </p>
<p>BOTTOM LINE: If you can’t pay for law school, you CANNOT go to that law school. No ifs, ands, or buts. You DO NOT have the money to go to that law school. It’s as simple as that. Go to the one you can afford.</p>
<p>The “everybody is doing it” argument simply isn’t persuasive. (I think Collegefreshman’s comment about “who is doing this” was rhetorical.) As we recently saw, “everybody” bought houses they couldn’t afford and we’ve seen where that has left us. Taking on six figures of non-dischargeable debt hoping 1) that you will do well enough to get hired at a high starting salary; 2) can last long enough in that high paying job to discharge your debt; or 3) intend to work in PI with an LRAP program–which every one ele is trying to get as well, is a HUGE financial gamble. For most people, it’s simply not a smart one. The problem is you don’t actually know until the end of your first year whether or not the gamble will pay off. At that point you pretty much know if you are looking at a starting salary of $160k or closer to $60k like the T14 grad in the recent NYT article.</p>
<p>I read on another site, where Emory had an absolute miserable year in placements. Very few grads even got jobs. To rub salt into the wound, one of the graduation speakers essentially told 'em to suck it up. And that is after making $200k in loans/payments to Emory, a fine school. Yikes!</p>