So I Visited a Corporate Law Office this Week...

[pch340]

<p>First off, I have been to law offices before, but this was a little different. The past few months, I've been working on a court case project where I go to the NJ Supreme Court in Trenton, and basically outline the case, take notes, and try to examine how the prosecutor or attorney pleads their appellate case. </p>

<p>The last time I went was in May and I usually stand in the main lobby and basically solicit (for lack of a better word) attorneys to see if they can answer some questions I have about the law profession.</p>

<p>Most of them just ignore me, some talk a little, but one woman was nice enough to give me her card, told me she was running late and that I should contact her if I had any questions. So we ended up doing a little back and forth through email, and she offered to give me a tour of the law office in which she works. So I ended up going this week (it's in Jersey City), and I was absolutely speechless.</p>

<p>25 levels of cubicle after cubicle. Men and women bundled up in their corners with stacks of folders, the smell of stale coffee was ubiquitous, and the whole place just gave me a headache.</p>

<p>The sad thing is, many of these lawyers actually went to good schools like UVA and GWU. And there they were, reading contracts all day for $35,000 a year. I talked to some of them, told them I was interested in working in corporate law. They told me to back out while I still had the chance...</p>

<p>I will be senior in HS next year, and I was planning on going into undergrad for economics. The thing is, after so many first-hand experiences with the future of a lawyer, I'm not sure whether I'm still interested. If the job market is like this now, how bleak will it be in 2019 when I graduate law school? </p>

<p>Is it abnormal for me to have so many apprehensions about going into law, or is this something everyone experiences with their intended profession? </p>

<p>I just don't want to spend upwards of $100,000 on my graduate degree and then have nothing to show for it. I honestly only know of one successful lawyer, and it seems like everyday I'm seeing more lawyers with broken dreams.</p>

<p>Any current/prospective lawyers willing to share a story of hope?</p>

[walteral1990]

<p>No one knows exactly how the economy will be in eight years. The most brilliant economists cannot even predict that. Also some people worry about their careers more than others. Worrying will not necessarily make you more successful but chilling out may not either.</p>

<p>This post reeks of many things sociologists say about Generation Y: the constant need for affirmation, the obsession over the weak economy, the desire to attain more and more degrees. I’m guilty of many of these things; it’s kind of interesting though.</p>

[BigBoi]

<p>Lol. I love “generation Y.” More cash opportunities for me!</p>

[liek0806]

<p>I think it’s great that you had that experience. I personally don’t understand why so many kids on these forums, and in some of my classes, are so dead set on attending law school and becoming a lawyer, when they haven’t even interned or actually seen a lawyer do their job(outside of the glamorized picture often portrayed in the media). The work on the job does not seem appealing when you see it in real life.</p>

[Neonzeus]

<p>This woman gave you a great opportunity. I am also amazed at how many students are dead set on attending law school and becoming a lawyer, no matter how many articles talk about the negative changes in the profession or how many reports come out about the limited opportunities. All of the law student boards talk about the lack of job opportunities. Current associates talk about the mind-numbing work and long hours. There are countless stories about the pressures of the partnership track, billable hours and rain-making. </p>

<p>I worked on a transaction last year, at which two biglaw associates (out 3 and 5 years) assisted partners. Their job was to order meals, make copies, take notes, find documents quickly when needed, proofread, and work an overhead projector. Yes, they were billable for 7-days a week and 14 hour days. They also got to say that they “worked” on a major transaction that got national attention, and they got to observe the rest of us. They may even have been paid more for their time on the transaction than I was paid, since I’m in-house. I doubt they expected to be doing that kind of work when they graduated law school though. </p>

<p>I think there are a lot of factors that play into why students still try to be lawyers. Many of them have family members who remember when the profession had a higher social status than it currently has, or have family members who did well financially when the profession had more financial opportunities. Many students majored in liberal arts, and suddenly realize that their degrees are not going to get them careers that will let students live well. Rather than start paying student loans, they roll the dice on a professional career to remain a student awhile longer. </p>

<p>Law students also tend to be bright, aggressive, verbal people. They’re used to being leaders. They have good grades, test well, and are used to being successful in undergraduate programs against the general pool of college students. </p>

<p>They aren’t used to studying hard to be in the bottom 50%-90% of a class (welcome to law school, where obviously only 10% of these bright students will be in the top 10%), or to competing against other students who are equally aggressive and motivated. They haven’t had much experience at failure, and believe they’ll be the exception that finds the job or earns the great grades. </p>

<p>Or they talk themselves into believing the economy will dramatically change by the time that they graduate. Or they want to change the world, saying “money isn’t everything” and they want to work for social justice where low-paying jobs are plentiful. Or they think that they have connections that will ensure their employability even if their Uncle’s/Neighbor’s/parent’s law firm or corporation has a hiring freeze. </p>

<p>At least in my son’s class, there are also a large number of students who say that they didn’t know what else to do since they didn’t do well in science and couldn’t go to med school or major in engineering. The common refrain is that at least law school may give them a chance to make good money someday. They also speculate that they can use the law degree in another field, although this is another overrated myth.</p>

<p>Since OP is in high school, OP still has a chance to research other careers. I strongly recommend monster board and other job listings to identify careers you might not otherwise consider. Take advantage of interest and proficiency testing. Interview everyone. I didn’t know anyone in medical careers, so I couldn’t advise any of my kids on opportunities in the medical field. Fortunately, a few of my kids found their passion for careers outside of law school.</p>

[walteral1990]

<p>Neonzeus: Do you think that your case and the cases of the inumerable pre-law and law students are ones of the grass being greener on the other side of the fence?</p>

[Neonzeus]

<p>Walteral1990: </p>

<p>I’m sure there are many law students and lawyers who are wishing they took another path, and there are many nonlawyers thinking that the lawyers have it made. Personally, I’m glad I became a lawyer 100 years ago, since I had a good career that paid the bills. </p>

<p>The opportunities and luck that I experienced (surviving mergers and acquisitions, being “in” at the beginning of legal specialties that became hot commodities over 30 years, etc.) do not appear to be as available to today’s young lawyers. The legal market has changed considerably. </p>

<p>My kid realistically knows that he can’t look at where I am today in the last decade of my career, and expect anything similar after he graduates next year. He’s just hoping for some opportunities of his own…starting with finding that $60,000 starting job out of law school…</p>

[RedSeven]

<p>By the time you’d be out of law school, the economy may be looking very different - and there may be new types of law emerging.</p>

<p>It’s too early to make the call from an economic standpoint.</p>

[UKclassof13]

<p>As a current undergrad I am not “dead set” on any profession. I am taking the LSAT in December and will take the rest from there. I do know that I will not settle for a good to mediocre law school and put myself in the position to be in the top 10 percent of my class in order to get a good head start at a career after law school. But I think it is naive of me to not consider law school as an option at this point.</p>

[Neonzeus]

<p>UKclassof13: I’m curious why you’re taking the LSAT in December? The October LSAT is typical for Fall applications (December is more typically for retakes. By the time your applications could be considered, acceptances will have started to be sent out ). It’s early if you’re not going to be applying to law schools for another year.</p>

[sallyawp]

<p>You may be interested in these experts from a very interesting article in this month’s ABA Journal. If the author of this article is correct, the changes that have occurred in the legal profession, including much more limited hiring, are likely permanent.</p>

<p>

Law Job Stagnation May Have Started Before the Recession—And It May Be a Sign of Lasting Change

</p>

<p>

The legal profession is undergoing a massive structural shift—one that will leave it dramatically transformed in the coming years.</p>

<p>There’s no doubt that the financial crisis beginning late in 2007 was for most lawyers a game-changer, prompting drastic measures as firms laid off thousands of associates, de-equitized partners, and slashed budgets and new hires.</p>

<p>But many hoped—and still do—that the effects of the recession would ebb, and that the profession, which had just witnessed a golden age of prosperity unmatched by any other industry, would re-emerge relatively unscathed.</p>

<p>The golden era is gone, but this is not because the law itself is becoming less relevant. Rather, the sea change reflects an urgent need for better and cheaper legal services that can keep pace with the demands of a rapidly globalizing world. The Great Recession—a catalyst for change—provided an opportunity to re-examine some long-standing assumptions about lawyers and the clients they serve.</p>

<p>Whether BigLaw lawyers, boutique specialists or solo practitioners, U.S. lawyers can expect slower rates of market growth that will only intensify competitive pressures and produce a shakeout of weaker competitors and slimmer profit margins industrywide. Law students will find ever-more-limited opportunity for the big-salary score, but more jobs in legal services outside the big firms. Associates’ paths upward will fade as firms strain to keep profits per partner up by keeping traditional leverage down.

</p>

<p>

Law touches on virtually every aspect of our social, political and economic lives. As the world becomes more interconnected and complex, new legislation, regulation and treaties bind us all together in ways that promote safety, cooperation and prosperity. Not surprisingly, over the last 25 years government data shows legal services constitute a slightly larger proportion of the nation’s GDP—now nearly 2 percent—with no hint of decline.</p>

<p>However a very different piece of evidence is the change in total law firm employment, or lack thereof. According to payroll data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau, the multidecade surge in law firm employment hit a plateau in 2004. Between 1998 and 2004, total law firm employment grew by more than 16 percent, or 169,000. Yet between March 2004 and March 2008, several months before the Wall Street meltdown that initiated an unprecedented wave of law firm layoffs, the nation’s law firm sector had already shed nearly 20,000 jobs.</p>

<p>This is a drop in the bucket for an industry that employed more than 1.1 million workers in 2004. But the flattened number of law firm jobs occurred at the same time major law firms in large urban areas were in a bidding war, taking entry-level salaries from $125,000 to $145,000 to $160,000. The public dialogue in the legal press and blogosphere was so fixated on the rising profits per partner at the nation’s top 100 law firms that the broader, systemic patterns went largely unnoticed—at least until the financial fallout descended in the fall of 2008.</p>

<p>By overgeneralizing how well the big firms were doing, we failed to notice a slow but fundamental economic shift affecting the majority of lawyers, who are solo practitioners or in small-to-medium-size law firms.</p>

<p>According to Fred Ury, a former president of the Connecticut Bar Association and a trial lawyer based in Fairfield, Conn., those mainstream lawyers had been feeling the pain for a while.</p>

<p>“The biggest problem,” says Ury, “is that ordinary citizens cannot afford to hire a lawyer. The bread and butter of small firm practices are criminal defense work, wills and trusts, leases, closings and divorces. Yet in Connecticut, 80 to 85 percent of divorces have a self-represented party because most families can’t afford to hire one lawyer, let alone two. Nearly 90 percent of criminal cases are self-represented or by a public defender because families can’t scrape together a retainer.”

</p>

<p>

New economic realities are affecting even the nation’s largest firms. Press releases may still report higher profits, but since 2007, revenue-per-lawyer figures have been trending sideways or down for the majority of the Am Law 100. Like the overall employment numbers for law firms, the stagnation represents a sharp break from historical patterns.

</p>

<p>History</p>

<p>

Over the last century, the traditional associate-partner law firm model has been one of the most enduring features of the U.S. legal profession. However, this remarkable run was made possible by a set of extraordinary economic conditions that no longer prevail.</p>

<p>In the early 1900s as the great industrialists and financiers built their empires, there was a shortage of sophisticated business lawyers. As law firms recruited apprentices on a larger scale to keep pace with business needs, a new question arose: Once the student became the master’s equal, how should the profits be divided?</p>

<p>The most famous solution came at that time from Paul Cravath, who founded the elite New York City law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore. Cravath recruited top graduates from leading law schools and developed their skills and acumen through a rotation system that lasted several years. The stated purpose of the Cravath system was to create “a better lawyer faster.”</p>

<p>Dubbed “a law factory,” Cravath’s firm was able to handle prodigious volumes of work and simultaneously train sophisticated business lawyers. As associates ascended into the higher echelon of the firm, the most lucrative reward was partnership. Those who failed to make partner there found the firm’s excellent training opened doors at other New York City firms. Unlike its competitors, the Cravath firm was stable and had the ability to scale its growth to meet the escalating needs of its clients.</p>

<p>Virtually all business law firms in major cities organized themselves along similar principles in the years that followed—growing and prospering from the post-World War II economic boom. Many of these firms emerged as today’s elite brands on either a regional or national level.</p>

<p>But the U.S. legal profession no longer has a shortage of sophisticated business lawyers. Increasingly, clients have become comfortable pitting one firm against another to obtain pricing discounts, and many large corporate clients no longer want to pay the billing rates of junior associates who are learning on the job, excluding first- and second-year associates from working on their matters.</p>

<p>In response, law firms have reduced the number of entry-level lawyers, turning the traditional pyramid structure into a diamond with many senior associates and nonequity partners composing the broad middle.

</p>

<p>Corporations</p>

<p>

In the corporate realm, general counsel are increasingly expected to achieve what other departments and businesses do—get better results at lower costs. No longer viewed as purveyors of the law, in-house lawyers are problem solvers and key business strategists. The multimillion-dollar budgets that flowed unchecked into the coffers of the nation’s largest law firms are now closely guarded and counted.</p>

<p>“There is no question that a serious recession caused a heightened sense of awareness for law firms and consumers,” says Gregory Jordan, who works out of Pittsburgh and New York City as Reed Smith’s global managing partner and chairman of the senior management team and executive committee. “As the recession starts to reverse itself, there will be some movement away from that super-heightened awareness of cost, but this recession gave buyers of legal services enough time to really appreciate that they could get the same quality of service for less than before the recession. The better, faster, cheaper concept is very much here to stay.”

</p>

<p>

Some Fortune 500 companies have adopted the presumption that all legal work will be done in-house. General Electric’s legal department and others have lawyers in India supervised by in-house lawyers in the U.S. And Cisco Systems built a Web-based knowledge management system that captures email conversations, facilitates secure communication with experts, and documents answers to frequently asked questions—all to boost in-house productivity and cut the law department’s expenses.

</p>

<p>Technology</p>

<p>

For most lawyers, survival will depend upon their ability to harness technology to deliver greater value to clients at a cost that declines—yes, declines—over time. The biggest challenge for law firms will be transitioning away from internal firm metrics that reward billable hours and discourage or prohibit the crucial trial-and-error experimentation needed to create, refine and market more innovative work processes that do more with less.

</p>

<p>Globalization</p>

<p>

U.S. lawyers underestimate the threats of foreign competition to the provision of domestic legal services. The realm of “all other legal services providers,” which grew from less than $1 billion in total revenues in 1997 to nearly $3 billion in 2008, will continue to attract sophisticated business capitalists eager to obtain a greater portion of U.S. corporations’ legal budgets.</p>

<p>Lower-level “commodity” legal work is already being sent to developing markets like China, India and the Philippines because wages are lower and the multiplying workforce is eager. Staff positions doing document review and slogging through discovery are highly coveted by a booming, educated middle class in a culture where law firm jobs often go to those at the top of the caste system. And quality, consistency, security and efficiency concerns have been quelled by legal services providers such as Pangea3 (acquired by Thomson Reuters), which is building facilities across the U.S. modeled after its India operations, and Chicago-based Mindcrest, which has facilities in India.

</p>

<p>

For those firms at the apex of the profession, the pressures of change may not be felt as heavily as by their midlevel counterparts, causing some law firm leaders to doubt the magnitude of the tremors affecting the industry.</p>

<p>“I’ve seen various waves of purported reform crash on our shores,” says Peter Kalis, chairman and global managing partner of K&L Gates. “I see no paradigm shift in the business of law. What I see are evolutionary adaptations to changing market conditions.”</p>

<p>Even so, Kalis says his firm’s aggressive global expansion in recent years is the result of client demands for cross-border expertise—and firms that can’t meet those demands could fail.</p>

<p>“In a world where even modest-size clients compete in global markets, they are going to need law firms positioned to address that,” says Kalis, who works out of the firm’s New York City and Pittsburgh offices. “There will be a lot of casualties among firms not on the right side of history, and they will be the last to know until talent and clients start to migrate to other firms.”

</p>

[cartera45]

<p>To the OP - please don’t spend time worrying about this now. Go to college, major in something that interests you and keep an open mind. </p>

<p>The market for lateral attorneys has picked up significantly - for both firm and in house hiring. I am particularly surprised at the number of corporate and corporate/securities positions. Even more surprising is that I am having trouble finding enough people willing to leave their law firms right now to join a corporation. I think many of them are still a bit shell shocked and inertia has set in. I am also witnessing my clients reach the height of “pickiness”. One young attorney, with perfect experience at “biglaw” did not get an interview because he had a 3.1 at Georgetown. He has been practicing for almost 6 years. Sometimes grades never stop mattering. </p>

<p>I am seeing companies beef up their in house legal capabilities. I am helping one company in Virginia build its in house staff. Once I help them find a General Counsel, that person, as part of the management team, will build a department over time. </p>

<p>Generally, I am encouraged, but I agree that things will not go back to where they were.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>It is a matter of supply and demand. In many markets there is a glut of lawyers. This means there is not always enough work for attorneys to do and they have to take whatever they can at whatever price they can get.</p>

[LazyKid]

<p>

I worked on a transaction last year, at which two biglaw associates (out 3 and 5 years) assisted partners. Their job was to order meals, make copies, take notes, find documents quickly when needed, proofread, and work an overhead projector. Yes, they were billable for 7-days a week and 14 hour days. They also got to say that they “worked” on a major transaction that got national attention, and they got to observe the rest of us. They may even have been paid more for their time on the transaction than I was paid, since I’m in-house. I doubt they expected to be doing that kind of work when they graduated law school though.

</p>

<p>I think that law, in large part, is a default profession. I mean, there seems to be a ton of people who choose to go to law school because they can’t figure what else to do with life and think that being a lawyer is a nice way to make a living. On top of that, as a result of presence of many low tier law schools, attending a law school and becoming a lawyer is within grasp for many folks. </p>

<p>And, believe it or not, the vast majority of non-law jobs are as dull and as boring, often times with lower pay and limited rooms for growth. (think regular corporate jobs, accounting, sales, etc) If a person is able to go to a top law school and land a big firm job, no matter what the working conditions, that in and out of itself is quite an accomplishment. And, many people find the work at big firms to be intellectually stimulating. If you are cut out for getting kicks out of being involved in big deals - types that you would read on New York Times - you might enjoy working in M&A or other deal-concentrated transactionary department at a big firm.</p>

<p>Where I see the problem with people trying to become a lawyer is when there are people who don’t know much about the profession, the work that law firm lawyers do, the work conditions, etc, go into law schools largely inspired by watching Law and Order and “I want to fight for justice” attitude. As long as you have reasonable expectations, try to attend the best school possible, and know what you are getting yourself into, I don’t think you will have too many problems.</p>

[UKclassof13]

<p>I am taking it in december for a number of reasons.</p>

<p>I have a light course load this semester. That combined with the summer months give me ample time to study.</p>

<p>If I do poorly I can still take it again in June</p>

<p>It will also help decide what kind of internship I will seek for next summer. </p>

<p>why not take it? This is an ideal time and it cant really hurt the situation</p>