<p>yeah- I’m definitely sensing a bit more fear and deperation on some of the posts on TLS.
Thanks for the info</p>
<p>Things have changed a lot in the last 10 or 15 years. Even putting aside the poor job market, going to law school is a much sketchier proposition.</p>
<p>For example, if you went to law school in the mid 90s, you could live reasonably frugally and spend $25k per year for tuition, room and board. Between working and begging/borrowing/stealing from your family, you could cover 20 or 30k of that while in law school and graduate with $50-55k in debt. Pretty much all of that debt was in Stafford loans. Moreover, any private loans you took out were dischargeable in bankruptcy. So in the bad case scenario, you are looking at a $500 per month student loan payment for 10 years. That’s painful, but it’s not a life-ruining amount of debt. Even if you have to take a lowish paying job, you can probably scrape together $500 per month.</p>
<p>By contrast, somebody starting law school today could easily expect to graduate with 150k or even 200k in debt, even with working during law school and getting a little support from ones family. None of that debt is dischargeable in bankruptcy (with extremely limited exceptions) and most of it is at the higher interest rates of private loans. Possibly you could expect a monthly payment of $1500 or even more, which will severely limit your options. And there is a good chance you will end up in default if you aren’t in a high paying job. </p>
<p>It seems to me things have changed a lot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure it is, but you’re assuming that someone struggling to pay a $1500 per month student loan payment while working in Biglaw is spending money unwisely. I beg to differ.</p>
<p>Someone making $160,000 per year living in NYC, for example, is paying almost 50% of his or her take home pay in city, state and federal taxes. This same young attorney is also paying his or her contribution to medical, dental and vision care premiums, life insurance and perhaps a 401k (since law firms, generally, offer no pension or other retirement benefits) each pay period. Young attorneys in NYC – even those with one or more roommates – pay a significant chunk of change in rent and utilities each month, too (the very common 1 bedroom splitter, where two roommates move into a 1 bedroom apartment and build a temporary wall across the living room to create a small second bedroom (and a small, dark living room, for that matter) still typically costs a minimum of $1,000 per month each). You can’t live too far away or those late night rides home will be just brutal. Add in the costs of dry cleaning, cell phone, toiletries, groceries (because, hopefully, the young attorney knows how to cook – otherwise, take out is convenient but much more expensive), commuting, hair cuts, stockings (for women, obviously – but they run often and aren’t cheap), newspaper, household items (cleaners, lightbulbs, etc.) and other necessities, and there isn’t much left to save or pay down student loans. </p>
<p>A young attorney working at Biglaw, living in NYC and paying off huge student loans won’t be taking fancy vacations, won’t be buying flat screen TVs and won’t be buying too much of anything unless he or she is looking to exercise his or her credit cards, ringing up more indebtedness in the process.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>unless you have worked at a biglaw firm you are simply in no position to judge someone for choosing to leave. you cannot even imagine the physical, emotional, psychological stress that can come from working in such an environment. reading about the long hours, the demands of more senior lawyers and clients, the pressure to bill hours, the difference between billable and real time hours, the stress, the meritocracy of good work being rewarded with more work, the fear that at any point no matter how hard you work economics and firm dynamics will send you involuntarily looking for another job, the inability to plan for your own personal time – NOTHING you read about all of this can prepare you for what it is actually like to work at a biglaw firm. it is not a matter of sucking it up for a couple of years to pay off your debt – it can be a matter of allowing your debt to dictate a very large portion of your life before you are economically free to move on – assuming you are not forced to move on earlier.</p>
<p>@unbelievablem… while it’s true that I have never been an attorney in a Biglaw firm I have been in the professional & governmental field working for many years often working 60+ hours under stressful situations while raising a family. Several of those years being a student, parent and working at the same time as I had to basically reeducate myself as I am still doing now. I know what it’s like to struggle and how the REAL WORLD works therefore I feel that I can have an opinion on the matter since that is what it is, an opinion.</p>
<p>Like it was mentioned earlier in another post, it is very irresponsible to quit a job w/out making a significant dent in your debt just because you don’t enjoy it, especially when you have nothing to fall back on. Myself like others have had to stay in jobs that we do not necessarily enjoy to take care of responsibilities until an alternative presents itself and why should this person be any different? This individual in this article is basically complaining about the debt in which (if the statement is accurate) he himself put himself into in the first place. What I am saying is if you chose to make that decision than fine but he really can’t complain about the consequences of his own decisions. The reason why I said I don’t feel sorry for him is because there are people out there who work hard in school & never obtain adequate employment. Why should I feel sorry for an individual who gives up employment over someone who can’t find work despite how hard they try? Again, just my opinion and yes I am entitled to it.</p>
<p>I love, love, love hearing law students talk about what legal practice and living with debt is like. Theres a sort of schadenfreude to it thats simply too delicious.</p>
<p>Lots of people get to practicing and love it. Its always a big adjustment; I dont know anyone that enjoyed their first year or so. That being said, debt and overwork are the numbers on and two complaints among my friends, including those that have come around to enjoying legal practice. Even they get paranoid; even they complain about feeling the golden handcuffs tighten.</p>
<p>Think about what its like for the half that realize its not for them.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the idea that its always been a no-brainer to choose higher tiered schools instead of scholarships at lower tiers shows a short-sightedness in how promotion among legal professionals works. Youre not guaranteed big money in the end because you got hired at Skadden. 90% of your peers went to top sixes and theres only room for 20% at the big table. The 10% that graduated outside the T6 will do better getting there, generally. They didnt in through social promotion after rocking the LSATs. They are just that ****ing awesome. The difference in quality that the adcomms couldnt see shines through. </p>
<p>Plenty of people do leave biglaw, too. Theyd rather be their own boss or take charge of cases right away or do something that feels meaningful. I know very few people who think some added career opportunity is no-brainer better being under 30 and debt free with your JD in pocket. (Especially if they have kids; Ive never seen people change their thoughts on trading time for money so fast.)</p>
<p>The thing is, debt is really just the beginning of the issue. </p>
<p>If you REALLY want to get a sense for some of the challenges that face lawyers as a profession in terms of health, check out an article by Federal Judge Patrick Schiltz in the Vanderbilt Law Review, On Being A Happy, Healthy, and Ethical Memeber of an Unhappy, Unhealthy, and Unethical Profession 52 VNLR 871</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d say this model is changing in this economy.</p>
<p>In what way?</p>
<p>I think the market will return about where it was in the next couple of years (I’m not seeing that much reform in how law firms bill or assess talent). That being said, it’s hard to imagine what change you anticipate that would obviate my point.</p>
<p>Getting admitted to a great law school is just surviving the first cull on the path to biglaw partnership. Many more of your peers that choose this path will fall by the wayside. Amassing great debt at a great school still bears a substantial risk that the debt will be intrusive on a happy lifestyle.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) Well, I even disagree with the notion that things will return to normal in a few years; even if that does happen, there’s no way to tell whether legal hiring will be what it once was. I can see firms like Davis Polk, Sullivan and Cromwell, Clearly Gottlieb, and Debevoise and Plimpton bring in 100 student summer classes, but they represent only a small fraction of the biglaw profession as it is.
2) The reason you’d expect most of your summer class/first year associate class to reduce in size as time moves on is based on several factors: 1) voluntary attrition and 2) performance-based terminations. (1) is no longer happening since there are very few legal jobs out there; there’s nothing else to jump ship to, unfortunately. (2) is happening, and quite often enough to pick up the slack of the decrease in (1), but still… performance-based lay-offs (a) look bad for the firm and (b) are really only necessitated, in this economy, because there’s not enough work to go around, and thus associates simply cannot bill hours.
3) Recognizing that one can no longer rely on voluntary attrition to trim the ranks, that laying off associates produces bad PR, and that–in general–it simply makes more business sense to have a lower associate-to-partner ratio, most firms have significantly reduced their summer class sizes. The goal, at least as it has been communicated to me by hiring partners at various firms, is to ensure that all summer associates can receive a permanent offer, that the associates they pick are ones they expect to stay at the firm for a while, and to reduce leverage (see above on associate-to-partner ratio). Because of the decreased size alone, associates in this year’s summer class (who take a permanent position at the firm) will have a significantly higher chance at making partner. Simply put, your model is obsolete.</p>
<p>Now the model still works for some firms (namely, Davis Polk, Sullivan and Cromwell, etc.). But that has less to do with the model, and more to do with the type of business they receive. Though other firms endured a significant drop in business in corporate work, the above firms really managed to make 2009 a great year, mostly because–even though there was less work to go around–they got most of that work. This came at the expense of many other firms, and those firms suffered… especially firms whose model (the one you described) depended on that type of business. Thus, there was fallout at firms like Latham & Watkins, Allen & Overy, Linklaters, Clifford Chance, White & Case, DLA Piper, and many more. It’s actually quite hilarious: If you look at the rankings of the most poorly leveraged firms to the most well leveraged firms, you’ll notice that layoffs and general health tend to correlate with degree of leverage. That isn’t a coincidence.</p>
<p>It really doesn’t matter that financial institutions didn’t learn their lesson; what matters is whether law firms did; I think the ones that got hurt did, and even if things do “return to normal,” there will be a chilling effect in place for a good, long time.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what all the talk about finance is for, but it leads me to believe that you’re making my point into something more complicated than it is. When I refer to “the market”, I refer only to the market for legal employment.</p>
<p>The articulated desires of the hiring partners aside, senior partners make big bucks because there are more associates than partners. This isn’t changing, so my point that getting into a white shoe firm doesn’t guarantee a long term earning potential higher than those that went to a school one link down the chain doesn’t either. </p>
<p>In any event, you point has become all kinds of jumbled to me. It seemed, at least, that you were arguing that: 1) attending the best school possible, even at the risk of taking on big debt used to be a financial no brainer because 2) it opened up opportunities at white shoe firms, but 3) it no longer makes financial sense to choose the ‘best’ school in the face of scholarships at others.</p>
<p>Now you seem to argue that changes in the market for law jobs have made most firms (albiet not most of the white shoes that I was talking about) more likely to make sure that all associates become partners. If that were the case, wouldn’t it make more sense to take on debt now, since an offer at a firm is more likely to lead to later suckling at the golden teat? Getting in is more important, and more of a guarantee, than before. And don’t your argued facts compel the conclusion that getting a partnership (and thus the kind of money that makes debt worthwhile) was always something of a crap shoot, even after you’d won the crap shoot of going white shoe post-JD?</p>
<p>I actually think my point was well made; I think your point is muddled, at best, so I’ll try to interpret it charitably in my response.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Eh, it really depends. Profits-per-partner (which is a flawed metric of firm health to begin with), it’s interesting that firms rocking the boat in this economy tend to have close to a 1:1 partner-to-associate ratio. </p>
<p>Here is a good post on leveraging: [The</a> Great De-Leveraging - Adam Smith, Esq.](<a href=“http://www.adamsmithesq.com/archives/2009/03/the-great-de-leveraging.html]The”>http://www.adamsmithesq.com/archives/2009/03/the-great-de-leveraging.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t argue this. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? I named only maybe three to four firms, and they hardly exhausted the list of “white shoe” firms. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. Since it’s “easier” to make partner from thinner ranks, it’s correspondingly “harder” to get your foot in the door to begin with. Whereas, in the past, getting a job in biglaw was pretty darn easy from the T14, it has now become really difficult, especially if you want a job at a “safe” firm. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I always think making partner is a crap-shoot, even with today’s reduced classes. I just think that it’s less of a crap-shoot than in the days of super over-leveraged law firms.</p>
<p>You seem to be confusing the argument I’m making, and stuffing words into my mouth. My only point of disagreement with you is the notion that only a small fraction of associates in biglaw will make partner. While that may have been true in the past, I think that, with the smaller incoming classes, that small fraction will become a little larger, thus making it more likely that one will make partner as a member of the class of 2011, 2012, etc. </p>
<p>And aside from partnership-prospects, the consensus seems to be that this was the law firms’ year in terms of recruiting: Firms got their pick of the litter, with incoming summer associate classes being whole orders of magnitude “more talented” than previous classes. Granted, I don’t hold that view of myself, but it that seems to be the word on the street, and summer class compositions seem to bear this out.</p>
<p>Just to help you pick out the details, since I’m almost positive you won’t read the post:
- 17 of the 25 most leveraged firms have had mass layoffs, salary cuts, deferred classes, or have dissolved in this recession.
- 8 of the 25 least leveraged firms have had any of the above. </p>
<p>It’s amazing, isn’t it? And some firms that we know are doing pretty well in this economy are in the list in (2): Wachtell, Gibson Dunn, WilmerHale, Covington, Ropes & Grey, Vinson & Elkins, Steptoe & Johnson, Arnold & Porter, and Fulbright & Jaworski. By contrast, only three firms that are doing pretty well in this economy are in the list in (1): Paul Weiss, Kirkland & Ellis, and Weil Gotshal (though I think they’ll go through hell when bankruptcy work dries up).</p>
<p>I did read both posts, and I still think the distinction you’re making doesn’t affect my point.</p>
<p>You said:</p>
<p>Certain choices that were “no brainers” a few years ago are no longer clear: If a student had a full ride at Georgetown, but got into Columbia with no money, the student should choose Columbia (as of a few years go). Now with the risk of not getting biglaw, it might be wiser in this economy to take on less debt, yet still attend a prestigious institution. </p>
<p>I argued that those choices weren’t “no brainers” then, because many, many associates didn’t get the lucrative partnerships. It was tempting to think so, but only because it felt like your debt problems would resolve themselves simply by getting in the door. They don’t. The salary of a G-town grad at a good firm and a Columbia grad at a great firm don’t spread out much if niether makes partner. </p>
<p>Considering how hard it is living under debt at the beginning, coupled with the chance that you never make the big money (or, as many decide, simply don’t want to trade the quality of life for it), I would think the “no brainer” would always be to take the scholarship and run with a free JD if the schools are anywhere in the same neighboorhood. </p>
<p>I don’t agree that law firms are going to permanently change their practices in terms of the relative size of hiring classes, but even if you’re right it doesn’t matter. If roughly the same number of T(x) students are making partner (just eliminated at a different point), the rubric for deciding on debt for attending a T(x) school v a T(x-1) with a full ride shouldn’t have changed much. </p>
<p>The cost/benefit hasn’t change, really, but the perception has because many law students justify debt by thinking about starting salary rather than long term earning potential.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think it would take as long to make partner as it would to pay off debt. IMO, debt should be repayable within attaining mid-level or senior associate status at a firm. That isn’t that challenging. Columbia over Georgetown with $$$ was a no brainer before because one had a significantly higher chance of getting on the biglaw associate track at the former than at the latter.</p>
<p>The difference between a “great job” and a “good job,” the former of which Columbia gave, and the latter of which Georgetown gave, still makes a huge difference in terms of money. Even if partnership odds are the same in both areas, exit options change dramatically whether you are in the former group or in the latter, with exit options in the former group being, on average, more lucrative than exit options in the latter.</p>
<p>just a couple of thoughts to throw out there:</p>
<p>1) i would recommend NEVER believing what a hiring partner has to say at face value. by definition, they are marketing their firm – they have an agenda that isn’t necessarily consistent with telling everything to the person they are marketing to. even if they actually fully believe their party line doesn’t mean its true.
i graduated law school about 25 years ago. even back then you had plenty of firms who were upfront about saying that only a small percentage of their new hires made it to partnership. and there were also plenty of firms (big name ones) who would look you in the eye and tell you it was their sincere hope that every summer associate they hired became an associate and that every associate they hired became a partner (and this was before they had non-equity partners). lo and behold though it always just seemed to work out that the latter part of that just never seemed to happen – they always had an explanation - so and so chose to go into government, so and so decided biglaw just wasn’t for them, etc., etc. but the simple truth was many associates left well before even coming up for partnership at those firms as well. no matter how sincere the firm seemed in claiming they really hoped that wasn’t the case.</p>
<p>2) it seems kind of intuitive to me that the more leveraged firms would have had more layoffs. biglaw firms make their money by charging clients way more than the knowledge of a brand new associate could possibly really be worth by having those associates bill ridiculous hours at ridiculous rates. the firms that have to bill more hours for those lower on the learning curve are going to be those with more room to cut when clients don’t want to pay for it.</p>
<p>3) personally, i would hope that even as the economy strengthens, clients will remain better consumers of legal services and not be as willing to fund the ridiculously high salaries of new associates who take twice as long to do basic work and that clients will demand leaner and more efficient services. ultimately it is what the clients are willing and able to pay that will determine what the law firms will be able to do.</p>
<p>4) i also think too much focus is spent on jobs at biglaw firms. even among those who start at such firms, the overwhelming majority simple don’t stay there. to plan one’s life and one’s debt on the assumption that you will be among those to stay just isn’t realistic. too many law students who have been top students through out their lives, always reaching for the next brass ring, simply assume that they will stick with the biglaw firm and make partner. even ignoring the fact that biglaw firms often take that decision out of the hands of the individual attorney, the fact is MANY will get there and realize it simply isn’t want they want for their lives. (because as said in an earlier post, no matter how much you think you know going into this, nothing actually can prepare you for what working at a biglaw firm is actually like.) high debt means you can be forced to either do what the author in the original blog post that started this thread did – ie bail out of biglaw and not be able to handle the debt – or stick with biglaw even if it is killing you for however long they allow you to so that you can pay off the debt that is strangling you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thus his debt is no one’s fault but his own. A 150k debt is manageable with a job that pays more than 100k per year. A person can live on a 50k salary (especially if they are willing to commute), thus he could pay off his debt in a few years.</p>
<p>“I don’t think it would take as long to make partner as it would to pay off debt. IMO, debt should be repayable within attaining mid-level or senior associate status at a firm. That isn’t that challenging.”</p>
<p>This is part of the lack of perspective I’m arguing. Most of my lawyer friends are getting to fourth or fifth year and they generally agree that they’ll take the full 20-30 years to pay it down. Maybe it’s lack of discipline and maybe life just happens, but I was surprised at how much stuff just “came up”.</p>
<p>Forget for the moment about broken-down cars and shirts getting shiny at the elbows. What happens if you meet that girl? Does the ring wait until your ramen phase is over? A nicer place to lay your head together? Kids?</p>
<p>The “challenge” isn’t skipping dinners at WD50. </p>
<p>“Columbia over Georgetown with $$$ was a no brainer before because one had a significantly higher chance of getting on the biglaw associate track at the former than at the latter.” </p>
<p>I’ll agree, but…</p>
<p>“The difference between a “great job” and a “good job,” the former of which Columbia gave, and the latter of which Georgetown gave, still makes a huge difference in terms of money. Even if partnership odds are the same in both areas, exit options change dramatically whether you are in the former group or in the latter, with exit options in the former group being, on average, more lucrative than exit options in the latter.”</p>
<p>It’s really not, in my experience, anyway. A full ride against 150K in debt is the difference between $1K a month (or 300K for a 5% loan on 20 years). I’m in a middle market, but I’m telling you that the after-tax income of T6 grads is not normally $12K higher than T20 grads coming out of school.</p>
<p>But what difference would you expect for a GT and NYU grad who both get bigger firm jobs? $30K a year? Even if the NYU grad pops all the extra on debt, the GT grad is debt free before age 30 and the NYU grad wears the golden bracelets until 40. If they’re both sick of the rat race and want to leave (as many do) …</p>
<p>Maybe you can try to put a price on that kind of freedom, but surely it’s more than 5 or 10 grand in expendable income a year.</p>
<p>It all goes back to my very first sentence. I know it sounds patronizing, but debt is one thing when you’re thinking on it academically. It’s another when you get your first bill and watch half your friends hyperventilate thinking about the future.</p>
<p>Mom of a junior at an Ivy here. Know nothing about law but it’s part of the discussion for what he’ll do upon graduation. What is this about scholarships to law school? Didn’t know that existed. Would they be merit or need based? We’ve been paying full freight for undergrad and are expecting that he’ll get hit with full freight for grad school. Sigh.</p>
<p>Have to say - law looks grim as a direction these days.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If his numbers are good enough, he can get a full scholarship at a top law school. There are also scholarships of lower amounts for lower numbers available. He will, in most cases, automatically be considered for them when applying.</p>
<p>Luckily(?), you won’t have to pay “full freight” up front. Loans to pay for one’s legal education are easy to come by.</p>
<p>On the note of expensive law school tuition, I was under the impression that the immense cost of law school and relative scarcity of grant-aid was based on the potential earnings of graduates, based on prior data. Since the salary charts are skewing downward for recent law graduates, shouldn’t this justify lowering tuition and/or providing more grant aid? I think it should, but I’m positive law schools won’t do a thing about it.</p>