<p>Let me put it to you this way. Right now, as many of us have witnessed all too painfully, many college graduates are not finding jobs, or if they are, are finding only jobs which, frankly, they don’t need college degrees. Heck, even during strong economic times, some college graduates ended up with mediocre jobs. I can think of quite a few college graduates who ended up as waitresses or store clerks. </p>
<p>I have no doubt that those students probably felt disappointed, and one could even argue that they wasted 4 years of their lives. After all, nobody goes to college with the goal of stocking shelves afterwards. But is the answer then to simply not go to college? College provides a chance at a better job, but certainly no guarantee. Does the mere fact that you may be disappointed at the outcome mean that you should never try at all? </p>
<p>If you want to argue that nobody should ever go to HLS because they might be disappointed at being relegated to a $40k job which would engender feelings of disappointment about wasting 3 years of their lives, and similarly, nobody should ever go to college because they might end up waiting tables afterwards, feeling as if they’ve wasted 4 years of their lives, then, while I disagree with that philosophy of life, I will give you credit for being consistent. </p>
<p>Heck, if anything, the HLS pathway is a stronger bet. Most undergraduates assume debt which they have to pay off regardless of what job they obtain after graduation. Their schools won’t suspend debt payments just because they were consigned to low-end jobs after graduation. But HLS will. In other words, HLS limits the downside in a way that undergraduate programs won’t.</p>
<p>And how many do? Considering many of the firms that could use this marketing tool for free don’t bother, it’s tough to imagine there’s really any demand for it. The fact that you can’t find a single instance of a firm hiring somebody just to use the Harvard name doesn’t help, either. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How much of that is for the marketing and how much for the work? I hope these hypothetical firms have a stronger idea of how this is supposed to provide value to them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, considering you didn’t respond to the part of my last post where I explained why this is the case, I certainly would. Low-paying entry-level law jobs are, by and large, not laid-back. Small insurance defense and personal injury firms are at generally at least as miserable as biglaw firms as places to work. People don’t take jobs there because they want a permanent vacation, they take them because they have no other options. And again, someone from HLS might actually have a weaker chance than a TTT grad. Especially if they make this marketing proposal during the interview.</p>
<p>Uh, no, if there truly is no demand for it at all, then no law firms would ever market their Harvard credentials. However, I have already demonstrated that some do.</p>
<p>Your point is not that there is no demand, but that the demand is variegated. Some firms desire the Harvard brand, while others don’t. The key then is to find those firms who do demand it. </p>
<p>To give you an analogy, many movie-goers, especially guys, have little demand for the Twilight movie series. Heck, I know some guys who would pay not to see those movies. But the fact remains that a fervent core base of fans exist who do demand those movies, and movie studios cater to that audience. You don’t have to serve the entire population. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, no firm is actually going to say that they hiring somebody simply to leverage the Harvard name for marketing purposes. They will just do so quietly. See below.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ll put it to you this way. Fire in the phrase “Harvard lawyer” or “Harvard attorney” into Google, and note the sponsored link results that appear on the right-hand-side of the screen. Those are ads from law firms who purchased the keywords “Harvard lawyer/attorney”. But why did they purchase that term? They could have purchased the simple keyword of attorney or lawyer. Why did they also have to include the name Harvard? The only logical explanation is that they believe that Google users will be searching for the term “Harvard lawyer/attorney”, and they believe it is important to reach those users. </p>
<p>That clearly indicates that there is marketing value to the Harvard brand. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because that part of your post seems to be false. Again, the Federal government has indicated that the median lawyer merely 9 months of experience made nearly $70k a year, and those in private practice made over $100k a year. These figures are aggregated across all law schools, of which HLS is superior to almost every one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody is talking about a permanent vacation where you never do any work at all. Clearly you still have to do some work. </p>
<p>What I am saying is that if law firms are truly willing to pay a median of over $100k for lawyers with only 9 months of experience - as indicated by the BLS data - I don’t find it particularly outrageous for a HLS graduate to simply ask for a job that pays him only $40k in return for a relatively light workload. Heck, it was even stated explicitly by other posters on this thread that it’s not hard at all for graduates of top law schools to find low-paid document review positions. </p>
<p>The other route to take is to join academia by becoming a lecturer at some low-tier, or even unaccredited law school. It doesn’t seem to be particularly difficult for somebody with top-tier credentials to become a lecturer at unaccredited programs such as Western Sierra Law School or Central California College of Law, particularly as you’re not looking for a formal tenure-track position, but simply a lectureship. Academia is well-known for being more brand-name conscious than arguably any other industry. Academia is also notorious for its relatively laid-back lifestyle (if you’re not trying to obtain tenure); summers are usually off, as are winter breaks. </p>
<p>Again, I maintain that if the median lawyer with only 9 months of experience makes nearly $70k, and the median lawyer in private practice with that experience makes well over $100k, it’s hard to believe that you as a HLS grad can’t find a less stressful law position that pays only $40k. Now that is truly defeatist. </p>
<p>
One has to merely skim back to my previous posts where I listed some law firms that do tout their Harvard credentials, many in a rather tacky manner. That indicates that there are indeed law firms who probably wouldn’t mind having a tacky marketing idea proposed to them (for after all, they’re tackily marketing themselves to others). </p>
<p>But if you want to be more conservative, then you can simply not mention the marketing proposal at all, and let the law firm deduce it themselves. I agree that some won’t, but others will. Again, why do some law firms purchase the “Harvard lawyer/attorney” Google keyword search terms if it had no marketing value?</p>
<p>**To choose the best attorney, look at their credentials first:</p>
<pre><code>Number 1 – Top Law School. This means they work harder and smarter than most anyone else. A Harvard Law School graduate is a rare find. Lawyers will tell you that is the most impressive credential.
</code></pre>
<p>I Graduated from Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. If you have not heard of Harvard Law school, welcome to planet earth and enjoy your visit.**</p>
<p>Now, whether you agree with him or not - and even I would disagree with him on the specifics of his marketing strategy - is not important. What is important is that he thinks it works, evidenced by the fact that he is marketing his Harvard connection as his #1 selling point as to why clients should hire him.</p>
<p>So, again, the key is to find those particular law firms who would care about adding a HLS credential to their marketing strategy. Certainly, I agree that some law firms have no interest. But some clearly do, in the same way that some movie-goers have no interest in the Twilight series, but others clearly do. The market exists, and you just have to cater to that market. </p>
<p>Again, it doesn’t matter whether such a marketing strategy works. It only matters whether the originators think it works. Seems quite clear that many law firms truly think it works, just like some moviegoers truly believe that the Twilight movies are some of the greatest movies ever made. </p>
<p>Here’s another law firm who is eponymously called: “Myharvardlawyer”.</p>
<p>How are they going to leverage the Harvard name quietly? If a firm is going to pay thousands just to be able to use the Harvard brand, I would assume they’d advertise it extensively. Though once you think about how they’d do that, the practicality of the scheme starts to fall apart. They’d have to use pretty ambiguous phrasing to describe their Harvard connection, since the only person with an HLS degree would be an associate who is not doing much work. That could run them into some trouble with attorney advertising laws, since they tend to be pretty strict. Even if it doesn’t, I imagine that a client who retains the firm because they’re attracted to the Harvard name would be very upset to discover that non-Harvard lawyers were doing the bulk of the work on their case and would probably be inclined to file a complaint with the bar. At the very least, they won’t refer anyone to the firm, which is how small firms actually generate business.</p>
<p>And as I asked before, if they’re willing to pay so much to use the Harvard name in somewhat-disingenuous advertising, why not take some Harvard Extension classes, or pay for a current associate to do so? That’s a much cheaper option.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is unrealistic, because you can’t just “scale down” the salary like that in exchange for a reduced workload. Consider biglaw firms that hire associates at $160K with a 2000 billable hour target. Are they willing to hire associates at $70K with a 1000 hour target? Absolutely not. Firms simply have no interest in hiring an associate who only wants to do “some work”, even if it’s at a lower rate than they’d normally pay. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or a handful, anyway, all of which already have the HLS credential they’re marketing. It’s not clear how much anyone would be willing to pay for it. I mean, anything’s possible, but it seems like a really bad idea to plan on making money with a marketing scheme that doesn’t exist anywhere right now, as far as you’ve been able to show, and has some obvious practical problems.</p>
<p>Uh, no, I said that they would choose the hiring strategy of hiring the Harvard guy quietly. Obviously once they did so, they would then leverage the brand name loudly - in the precise manner as the law firms in the above links. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Frankly, I suspect some law firms probably do, although they wouldn’t be Harvard graduates. </p>
<p>But, as I asked before, if the Harvard brand name truly carries no value, then why were the law firms stated above emphasizing their Harvard connection so strenuously? {Granted, perhaps they’re being stupid, but the paycheck from a stupid employer is just as valuable as one from a smart employer.} </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, we’re not talking about biglaw firms. If you had a biglaw job, then obviously you wouldn’t be worried about LRAP anyway, as your salary would cover whatever tuition and interest payments you’ve incurred. </p>
<p>Keep in mind, we’re talking about low-level firms, of which many exist. Be honest - how many such firms have all of their associates billing 2000 hours a year? I would say almost none. It is widely understood that lower-level firms pay less than biglaw, but in return for less work. </p>
<p>Southwestern University Law School is a 3rd tier law school according to USNews. I think we can agree that very few of its graduates are billing 2000 hours a year at biglaw firms, and indeed a whopping 45% of its graduates who entered private practice did so at firms of no more than 10 attorneys, where the billing hours were probably attenuated (compared to biglaw). And, again, this is a third tier law school. Surely as a HLS grad, you can find some such firm that would indeed agree to pay you relatively little in return for a relatively light workload. Even leaving aside the value of the HLS marketing brand, the mere fact that you went to HLS indicates that you are clearly more academically capable than the average new law grad those firms would usually be able to hire. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, you have freely conceded that the marketing scheme does exist, in that some firms are indeed attempting to leverage the HLS brand. Whether the scheme works or not is a different matter, all that matters is that some firms think it works. And since they think it works, that also implies that they would attach some dollar value to it, however theoretical it may be. If no law firm thought the brand had any value whatsoever, then you really would see zero law firms attempting to leverage that brand. </p>
<p>What you seem to be referring to is the scheme where firms deliberately try to obtain the Harvard brand. But of course no law firm is going to explicitly state that this is what they’re doing, just like no company is going to discuss the details of their marketing strategy publicly. By the same token, movie studios are never going to admit that they deliberately insert the most interesting parts of the movie into their trailers while leaving out all of the boring material, even though we all know that that’s exactly what studios do. </p>
<p>Finally, again, nobody is arguing that this is a plan that anybody attending HLS would ever truly want to use. Obviously most HLS grads want to garner high-paying biglaw jobs. Nobody wants to be poor. </p>
<p>However, as I’ve said before, as a backstop, it’s not that hard as a HLS grad to find a $45k law job that isn’t particularly grueling. Does anybody want to seriously argue that a HLS grad truly can’t find such a job?</p>
<p>Reading through this thread, it seems like prospective lawyers have a bleak outlook almost regardless of where they graduate from, assuming that they didn’t receive a generous scholarship or some other means of staving off debt. Even those lawyers who earn 160K salaries straight out of law school will have great difficulty managing their finances, while at the same time they will be expected to work 70-80 hours a week at their law firm. </p>
<p>Those who take advantage of LRAP consign themselves to a mediocre salary for a decent length of time, even if they manage to avoid the stresses of BIGLAW. </p>
<p>So my question is this: given these facts, is there no way out? There must be some reason why the people posting on this site want to attend law school, but from reading this thread, I can see no upside to obtaining a J.D. from even the most prestigious law school if you are saddled with 100K+ debt in the process.</p>
<p>And to those in this thread who are already lawyers: are you happy you went to law school and pursued the career path that you did?</p>
<p>Except that they can’t use it in precisely that way, since the only person with an HLS degree would be one associate who is not doing much work. Which, again, may run them into problems with attorney advertising laws and which will almost certainly upset clients who choose them specifically because of their Harvard credentials.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why? You found no examples of this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, it’s a huge leap to assume that, because some people will use a credential they already have in their advertising, others would be willing to pay thousands of dollars for it. And that leap is tougher to make when you see that many firms could advertise this way for free but choose not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, you’re betraying your ignorance of the legal market. People don’t choose these firms because they require less work. They choose them because they have no other options. Small insurance defense or personal injury firms often work their associates like dogs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Academic capability” is completely meaningless to some small-time ID firm. If anything, the fact that you’re likely to be extremely dissatisfied with the mindless work you have and have a lot more options when you (almost inevitably) want to leave will make them less likely to hire you. If the choice is between an HLS grad who wants to take it easy and a TTT grad who will kill himself working 80-hour weeks to stay employed, the HLS grad is unlikely to win out very often.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, using something for free doesn’t necessarily imply that you attach any dollar value to it. And the fact that many people who could use it for free don’t even bother would suggest that dollar value is not likely to be high.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, yeah, since that has been the entire subject of the debate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but you haven’t even found a firm where this appears to be what they’re doing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve actually found an example of someone doing just that:</p>
<p>Why? The law firm is doing nothing illegal - they do indeed have a Harvard lawyer on staff. They never promised that that Harvard lawyer would be doing much work. </p>
<p>As far as having upset clients, hey, well, I’m upset when I’m roped into terrible movies that just happened to have had great trailers. I’m sure we’ve all had that happen to us. Yet at the end of the day, we, the movie-going audience, keep coming back to buy tickets for terrible movies such as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, which earned hundreds of millions at the box office. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, because no firm is going to explicitly state that they’re doing so, similar to the fact that no firm is going to explicitly state their marketing strategy. Yet given all of the marketing schemes run by businesses every day that we all know happens behind the scenes, I’m amazed that anybody is naive enough to think that no law firm isn’t thinking of such a scheme. </p>
<p>As a simple case in point, we’re all surely highly familiar with celebrity endorsements. Peyton Manning endorses Sprint, which somehow convinces people to switch to Sprint. But, honestly, why? Is the logic that a successful quarterback like Peyton Manning makes lots of phone calls which therefore makes him an expert on telecommunications networks such that his endorsement of Sprint is a reliable mark of quality? Yet the undeniable truth is that Sprint paid Peyton Manning for his endorsement, which must mean that either people are indeed convinced to switch to Sprint because of his endorsement, or that Sprint is just stupid. Either way, Manning is millions of dollars richer. </p>
<p>Now obviously a Harvard graduate isn’t going to make millions of dollars from a brand-name endorsement. However, the logic is the same: for some reason, co-branding your company with another famous brand (such as the Peyton Manning brand) seems to work, or at least those companies think so. If Sprint, Mastercard, Sony, and Kraft all believe that associating themselves with the Peyton Manning brand will boost their profits, then it’s hard to believe that there isn’t a law firm somewhere out there that doesn’t think that associating themselves with the Harvard brand won’t boost their profits. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All you need is one. Like I said, maybe Visa or American Express didn’t think that associating themselves with Peyton Manning was worth anything. But Mastercard surely did. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re now betraying your ignorance of the legal market. Some small firms may work their associates like dogs. But others don’t. Since there are many such small firms, you just have to find one that doesn’t. </p>
<p>Again, the fact that you’re a HLS graduate, rather than the average graduate from a no-name law school whom those law firms usually end up hiring works strongly in your favor, because you have superior bargaining leverage. Those law firms know (or at least think) that you have other options. They may work their regular associates like dogs because they know they can’t really leave: nobody else really wants to hire them, and they know it. But you, as the HLS grad, should be able to demand better working conditions. Or else, you can leave. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think he’s likely to win out far more often than not. Again, keep in mind, you’re asking for a relatively low salary. The Southwestern University grad is asking for, on average, about $80k a year. You just want $40k. You are also (probably) more intellectually capable than the SW grad. I think it’s quite reasonable that the law firm would then not have you work long hours, even if they know that you will probably be around for only a year or two. $40k a year is not that much money. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong. The debate has been about what other options you have as a HLS graduate if you truly can’t find a biglaw job that sufficiently pays your loans. As I’ve always said, if you can do that, you should do so. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s see: celebrity endorsements, guerilla marketing, astroturfing, product placement, the embedding of advertising into pop culture, and the list goes on regarding all of the various ways that companies try to cobrand themselves.</p>
<p>Again, no company is going to outright admit to doing this. Sprint is not going to tell you about all of the other celebrities who it may have tried to hire to endorse their services before it was able to land Manning. But we all know that Manning is indeed being paid a very handsome fee, although exactly how much is also undisclosed. Similarly, no fashion house is going to tell you that it actually pays (or at least gives away free items to) famous actresses to be photographed wearing their dresses and handbags at the Academy Awards, although I think we all know that that happens. </p>
<p>Frankly, I’m surprised that you would take this position, for I find it naive. The fact is, every day, companies are developing ever-more innovative ways to co-brand and co-promote themselves. None of us here were born yesterday - companies have been marketing to us since we were children, and by now, we surely know, or at least suspect, that companies will spare no expense in discovering more ways to promote their products to us . It would therefore be shocking if no law firms out there that weren’t thinking of boosting their marketing profile by associating themselves with the Harvard brand.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I’ve found somebody who would assure that person that he should be able to leverage the marketing opportunities available to him. Check out the posts from “sakky”.</p>
<p>I would put it to zaprowsdower this way. The average college graduate from just an average school makes about $48k a year to start, working in an average job that doesn’t involve tremendously long hours. {Let’s face it, most average jobs are not particularly time-consuming}. Heck, even liberal arts graduates made an average starting salary of $35k. Yet you, as a HLS grad, can’t find a law job that pays only $40k? Really? Be honest - does that sound reasonable to anybody? </p>
<p>If you, as a HLS grad, truly are incapable of finding such a job, when even liberal arts grads are making $35k a year to start, then I truly feel sad for you.</p>
<p>Frankly, I don’t understand much of the doom and gloom, for the question that is simply begging to be answered is: really, what else were they going to do? As I pointed out, the average liberal arts grad is making only $35k a year to start. {Which should put the LRAP opportunities I’ve discussed into perspective: law firms are probably paying a new liberal arts grad $35k a year just to greet visitors, answer the phone and make coffee for 40 hours a week, and you as a HLS grad can’t find a job doing actual law-related work at those law firms for just $40k a year?}</p>
<p>The problem is that most jobs available to those holding only bachelor’s degrees in the liberal arts - which is what most law students majored in as undergrads - is that they don’t offer strong opportunities for advancement. Somebody with a liberal arts degree taking a job as a receptionist, after 10 years of working, will probably still be just a receptionist. On the other hand, somebody with an elite law degree, after 10 years of working, will probably be debt-free or close to it, and have a multitude of career opportunities available to him. He might have already made partner, or be close to it. He could choose to take an ‘of counsel’ role. He could choose to work in the legal division of a regular company. He could start his own law firm. No comparable opportunity set is available to those holding only bachelor’s degrees.</p>
<p>The truth of the matter is that a debt level of $100k or even $200k - which some posters have implied - really isn’t that much debt when you’re making biglaw salaries, especially when amortized over a 10 year period. If you make $160k a year from a biglaw job, then even if half of that goes toward taxes and another $60k a year goes toward supporting, frankly, a quite comfortable lifestyle, that leaves $20k to retire your debt. Let’s ignore interest charges as while debt increases with interest, your biglaw salary should also be increasing over time. Having $60k a year to spend on your own personal expenses, even in a high-cost location such as Manhattan, allows for a quite comfortable lifestyle, especially for somebody still in their 20’s, fresh out of law school. To put it in perspective, the average worker in Manhattan made only about $75 k in pretax income. Yet they’re still somehow able to afford living in Manhattan. {Or maybe they just work in Manhattan and live in a cheaper borough, but you could do the same.} </p>
<p>The risk is obviously that you won’t find a biglaw job, or if you do, that you’re laid off from it before paying off your debt. But that’s when the LRAP is invoked, which leaves you no worse off than had you never gone to law school at all but simply taken that receptionist job right after undergrad. You could shelter under the LRAP umbrella during unusually bad economic times (like now) while finding a regular law job when the economy recovers. {Granted, such a job probably wouldn’t be at biglaw, but then that also means that you can avoid the high living costs of a place like Manhattan.} Even in the worst case scenario, you retreat under the LRAP sanctuary for the entire duration to emerge debt-free, with a HLS degree to boot. As I said, the guy who works as a receptionist for 10 years is still just a receptionist with few opportunities to advance. </p>
<p>Perhaps you might argue that other career paths are clearly superior. I wouldn’t be so sure. Becoming a doctor not only requires longer postgraduate school (4 years vs. 3) but also 3-7 years of residency/internship/fellowship for which they’re paid a pittance while working 80 hours a week and while their medical school loan interest continues to compound. Put another way, the best law students have the chance to work in biglaw making $160k a year right out of law school. The best med students right out of med-school might make $50-60k as residents. Be honest - who’s worse off? </p>
<p>Or what of consulting and Ibanking? These careers are also infamous for their long hours; Ibanking being one of the few industries in which 80 hours a week feels like a vacation. Most consultants and Ibankers also find that they need to obtain top MBA degrees to maintain their careers, and MBA’s aren’t cheap. We also live in a society where, for better or worse, we need lawyers, as criminal cases do have to be prosecuted and defended, and legal contracts do have to be drawn up and sometimes litigated. Even in the smallest town, there will be somebody breaking the law, or accused of doing so, or somebody who needs to draw up a will, sign a title deed, or undergo a divorce. Hence, there will always be jobs for lawyers. {They may not be great jobs, but there will be jobs.} It’s far less clear that society really needs Ibankers, and especially not consultants. That is why those professions are characterized by high ‘employment-beta’: when the economy declines, those professions downsize precipitously because clients realize that they don’t really need them. Let’s face it: nobody really needs consulting advice. </p>
<p>So the question remains: what else was somebody with just a liberal arts bachelor’s going to do? Attending law school, even while racking up a 6-figure debt, might be one of the least bad options.</p>
<p>“Harvard lawyer on staff” is probably not very effective advertising, but it’s just about all they could say without getting into trouble. I doubt the state bar is going to be inclined to go easy on what is, really, a deceptive practice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This analogy really doesn’t merit a response, but again, upsetting clients is a real problem for small firms. They’re likely to file complaints and, as I said, the bar isn’t going to look favorably on your advertising practices when they see them. At the very least, clients are not going to refer anyone to you or retain you ever again, which will hurt your business.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But the point is to loudly advertise the Harvard connection. It shouldn’t be hard to find these firms, but you couldn’t find any that were using it really disingenuously.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is exactly why they don’t want to waste their time and money hiring you, just to have you leave. It makes absolutely no sense to think that someone who makes more demands and is more likely to leave will get the job over someone who will work their butt off to stay employed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not low for a small firm.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a lot of money for a small firm where the partners might not bring home $100K a year. They do not have any interest in hiring someone who doesn’t want to work hard and who will leave after a year or two. That’s a complete waste of time and money for them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except the number of firms that have tried to “co-brand themselves” by hiring a part-time Harvard associate is zero. The fact that companies try to co-brand themselves doesn’t mean that every ridiculous, poorly-thought-out scheme will work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, it’s a huge leap from “co-branding schemes exist” to “this ridiculous plan will work”. Even in the extremely unlikely event that you could find someone who thought the Harvard brand was worth way, way more than the rest of the market did (remember, some people don’t even bother using it for free), and could actually afford to pay for it, why would they? They would be bidding against themselves, since nobody else thought it was worth anywhere near as much as they did. If you thought a '99 Civic was worth $40K, there would still be no need for you to pay that much, since you could out-bid any other buyer well below that price.</p>
<p>Well, those law firms that have been advertising their Harvard credentials seem to have been doing it for awhile now. I don’t see any signs that they’re going to stop (or go out of business). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait, so you expect law firms to publicly state that they are using advertising disingenuously? So basically you want me to find some ridiculously stupid law firms, but who also happen to have Harvard attorneys on staff. </p>
<p>I think the number of such firms is probably zero. I think anybody with half of a brain is not going to be stupid enough to publicly announce in a traceable manner that they specifically plan to use marketing in a devious manner. They’re just going to do it quietly. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? See below. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, just a receptionist probably costs $30-40k a year. Yet plenty of small firms hire receptionists. And many receptionists leave after only a short stint; it’s well known that that’s a temporary job for many people. </p>
<p>In this case, you’re not expecting to make any more than the receptionist is, and you may not be working for the company for any longer than the receptionist will be. I think that’s entirely reasonable. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What are you talking about? All of the firms that were mentioned are effectively co-branding themselves with the Harvard name. Some of them may or may not be doing so with a part-time attorney, we just wouldn’t know. {And obviously those law firms are not going to tell us which of their attorneys are part time and which aren’t.} </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And exactly how would you be bidding against yourself? The HLS grad is going to be doing actual full-time legal work for you. That, by itself, is worth at least $35-40k a year. The Harvard brand would then be found money. </p>
<p>Again, why not? Like I said, the Southwestern University Law grads who enter the private sector are being paid an average of around $90k a year. One could ask - why are they being paid such “ridiculous” salaries if they’re not producing sufficient value? Yet if they can paid those wages, then is it really so outlandish for a HLS grad, even working part time, to be worth $40k? Really? </p>
<p>I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Law firms pay their receptionists, heck, they probably even pay their janitors $30-40k a year. Yet they can’t pay a HLS grad that sort of salary for actual attorney’s work, even if part-time? Really?</p>