Thoughts on Arizona State Law School

[LazyKid]

<p>

Don’t waste your time with lazykid. He somehow bought the mentality that only NE BIG LAW jobs are the way to make serious money and that you must attend a t14 school to do so.

</p>

<p>It is a conventional wisdom that one should try to attend the highest ranked law school possible in order to maximize one’s chances of getting a good job. </p>

<p>

I am still laughing at him legitimately thinking that as a lawyer you will likely be stuck making 45k from graduation until death. I know many many lawyers recently hired from schools no where near the t14 (think UK, UL) making more than that and also many mid career lawyers making 6 figure salaries from these same schools. They all told me you have to work your ass off the first several years but achieving financial success is extremely possible

</p>

<p>I also know a electrician who makes 90 k a year, and actually, my uncle is a garbage man in NYC who makes 87 k a year. (He didn’t even finish middle school) Guess what? I am not talking about all samples of lawyers. I am arguing that many outside of BigLaw/ mid law and along corporate counsels, make terrible money. This is a fact. I never deny that there could be successful lawyers outside of the areas of my discussion. Yet, it is exception, not the rule. Also, it depends on what your definition of ‘financial success’ is. Some people are content with 70k a yer 10 years into career. Others aren’t. The point stands that people outside of BigLaw boat will struggle to touch SIX figure salary.</p>

[LazyKid]

<p>

I think you can rest assured that you’ve made it impossible for us to forget how clueless 0Ls tend to be.

</p>

<p>It is good to be skeptical of law schools in general - when there are thousands of unemployed lawyers and angry law grads on the verge of calling their alma mater as “scam” in leading them to believe misleading career statistics. You can rest assured that you’ve made it impossible for us to forget how some people actually think going to a low-ranked law school is a good idea, despite all the warnings. </p>

<p>

Unless you get a job outside of OCI. Which is close to impossible for biglaw and firms outside the market your school is in, but pretty far from impossible in general.

</p>

<p>People can make 40 k straight out of college. Making 40 k out of law school, with 3 years of additional schooling and loans, is a terrible deal. And, a 40-45 k job is the best case scenario outside OCI.</p>

<p>

But not everyone is gunning for NYC biglaw, and not everyone who doesn’t work in biglaw is poor.

</p>

<p>This is not the point. I never argued that everyone is gunning for NYC biglaw. My point is that since most BigLaw jobs are in NYC, it is an advantage to consider NYC market/ T-14 or strong regionals. </p>

<p>And, for sure, people who don’t even land jobs out of law school are ‘poor’. And, I think that there is a rather strong chance you wind up unemployed out of ASU Law. You initially suggested that virtually 100% of ASU law grads, as long as they pass Arizona Bar, can get a paying legal employment, due to the presence of many firms in Phoenix. Like I said, I highly doubt this is the case, when schools like Wash U or Emory had over half of graduating 3L’s face unemployment. I think you really need to stop sugar-coating things, or I demand some source to back up your claims.</p>

<p>

No, they are not. They are looking at “employed” lawyers, which is to say that equity partners (who are not employees of their firms) are excluded.

</p>

<p>‘Associates’ =/= ‘lawyers’. Associates are lawyers with firm jobs. Not all lawyers get firm jobs. Do you see why I say “ALL lawyer median salary = 100k” is problematic?</p>

[hyperlite]

<p>what is OCI?</p>

[sybbie719]

<p>OCI stands for On-Campus Interviewing. </p>

<p>OCI is a service to the largest law firms and the most prestigious private, non-profit, and government entities. Generally, these employers hire the top 10%-20% of a law school class. OCI affords these employers an orderly process through which they can evaluate students. </p>

<p>Why just the big firms? Why not smaller firms? </p>

<p>Few smaller firms have the resources to project staffing needs so far in advance. Unlike the big firms, small firms hire on an “as needed” basis. When large firms hire a 2L for the following summer, they’re actually projecting not just one year, but two years ahead in anticipation of making an offer of permanent, post-graduate employment to that 2L. See [NALP:</a> DLE - Directory of Legal Employers](<a href=“http://www.NalpDirectory.com%5DNALP:”>http://www.NalpDirectory.com) for a complete directory of large firms.</p>

<p>Why mostly 2Ls and not 3Ls? </p>

<p>Large firm employers are more interested in 2Ls because the summer associate 2Ls usually receive offers to work there after graduation, so large firm employers generally do not need to hire additional 3Ls.</p>

<p>Which employers participate?
On-Campus Employers – Refers to employers interviewing held at _____ Law School, in addition to Interview Day in other major markets, for ex. NYC and DC. </p>

<p>Resume Collection Employers – For employers that are unable to interview students on-campus, but wish to receive application materials from students as a group, the Symplicity system will collect students’ materials and forward them as a group to the employer. There is usually an OCI deadline for uploading materials to Symplicity is the same for on-campus and resume collection employers.</p>

[zaprowsdower]

<p>

@LazyKid

The point stands that people outside of BigLaw boat will struggle to touch SIX figure salary.

</p>

<p>Except that the majority of lawyers will accomplish this at some point in their career, even though most of them will never work in biglaw.</p>

<p>

And, a 40-45 k job is the best case scenario outside OCI.

</p>

<p>Link?</p>

<p>

My point is that since most BigLaw jobs are in NYC, it is an advantage to consider NYC market/ T-14 or strong regionals.

</p>

<p>Someone who pays full price for Fordham or Cardozo, misses out on biglaw (which they likely will) and then has to compete with thousands of other unemployed grads and former biglaw associates for jobs absolutely does not have an “advantage” over someone who paid a lot less for Arizona State. And if that person never had any interest in NYC biglaw (which is not an irrational position), it would make absolutely no sense to consider a northeastern school.</p>

<p>

‘Associates’ =/= ‘lawyers’. Associates are lawyers with firm jobs. Not all lawyers get firm jobs. Do you see why I say “ALL lawyer median salary = 100k” is problematic?

</p>

<p>No, because they are not looking exclusively at associates. They are looking at every lawyer they have payroll data for. The reason they mention associates (in their non-exclusive list of examples) is that equity partners are not salaried employees and consequently don’t show up in the payroll data. So the average and probably the median are being understated, if anything.</p>

[LazyKid]

<p>

Link?

</p>

<p>Check out the bimodal salary distribution of legal jobs. Bluedevilmike actually posted a link in this thread.</p>

<p>

Except that the majority of lawyers will accomplish this at some point in their career, even though most of them will never work in biglaw.

</p>

<p>Majority of ALL lawyers will make over 100k? Over their career? Are you kidding me? Again, stop sugar coating things. There are many lawyers in the country straight-up unemployed. Along with many law grads. Income zero. Surely, they are lawyers too, since they passed the bar. You must be seriously delousional. </p>

<p>And, good luck with accomplishing that goal of breaking six figures anytime soon outside of Big/Mid law. (Sincerely)</p>

<p>

Someone who pays full price for Fordham or Cardozo, misses out on biglaw (which they likely will) and then has to compete with thousands of other unemployed grads and former biglaw associates for jobs absolutely does not have an “advantage” over someone who paid a lot less for Arizona State. And if that person never had any interest in NYC biglaw (which is not an irrational position), it would make absolutely no sense to consider a northeastern school.

</p>

<p>Cardozo is a must-avoid school, unlike Fordham that places relatively well compared to its rank. Hence, my point that law schools are only worth it when you can attend schools with strong placement records into firms. And, someone who has just interest in ‘biglaw’ not just ‘nyc biglaw’ should probably strongly consider NYC, due to the fact that many biglaw legal markets are dead out of NYC and most Biglaw jobs are in NYC. Right now, Biglaw is like finance. Most finance jobs are in NYC. Most Biglaw jobs are in NYC. To maximize your chances of ever sniffing air inside a BigLaw building, you must seriously consider working in NYC. It this that hard of a concept to grasp?</p>

<p>

No, because they are not looking exclusively at associates. They are looking at every lawyer they have payroll data for. The reason they mention associates (in their non-exclusive list of examples) is that equity partners are not salaried employees and consequently don’t show up in the payroll data. So the average and probably the median are being understated, if anything.

</p>

<p>The study you referenced noted that only ‘associates’, in-house attorneys, and select government attorneys are considered for the salary report.</p>

<p>This implies that a large portion of low-earning attorneys weren’t even considered. For instance, there are a bunch of ‘lawyers’ working temp/contract jobs, some working as legal aids, some working at 2 lawyer personal injury gig with 35 k, some working as solo (barely making the ends meet), etc. There is no way that MOST of ALL ‘lawyers’ will make 100k. I suspect you may be working at career office at a low-ranked law school or something in projecting this overly-incorect and optimistic portrayal of the legal market. You suggested that 100% of all ASU law grads would get legal jobs. This is flat-out wrong.</p>

[bluedevilmike]

<p>

Check out the bimodal salary distribution of legal jobs. Bluedevilmike actually posted a link in this thread.

</p>

<p>I believe the link is for starting salaries. That’s not to disagree (or to agree) with your broader point, but just to be clear about the graph in question.</p>

[LazyKid]

<p>

I believe the link is for starting salaries. That’s not to disagree (or to agree) with your broader point, but just to be clear about the graph in question.

</p>

<p>Hence my point that most legal jobs outside of OCI = 40-45k salary to start.</p>

[kayf]

<p>Why do you say avoid Cardoza? I am older but run into Cardozo grads at govt jobs and small firms.</p>

[zaprowsdower]

<p>

@LazyKid

Majority of ALL lawyers will make over 100k? Over their career? Are you kidding me?

</p>

<p>Nope. You can look at actual numbers, or just continue to insist that your uninformed preconceptions are irrefutably correct. It’s become pretty obvious what you’ve chosen.</p>

<p>

Cardozo is a must-avoid school, unlike Fordham that places relatively well compared to its rank.

</p>

<p>How many Fordham grads get biglaw jobs? A small minority. The success rate of Fordham students seeking biglaw jobs is assuredly far, far lower than the success rate of ASU grads seeking jobs with small or midsized Arizona firms. This would probably come a shock to Fordham students, but not as big a shock as the fact that, when they strike out of biglaw, the employers they’ll be looking at won’t care nearly as much about US News rankings and won’t invariably hire them over Cardozo or Brooklyn grads.</p>

<p>

To maximize your chances of ever sniffing air inside a BigLaw building, you must seriously consider working in NYC. It this that hard of a concept to grasp?

</p>

<p>Apparently it’s not as difficult to grasp as the idea that the market with the largest number of jobs could also have the largest number of job seekers, and that the latter number could exceed the former. And I’ll assume the idea that someone could rationally want anything other than an NYC biglaw job is simply inconceivable.</p>

<p>

The study you referenced noted that only ‘associates’, in-house attorneys, and select government attorneys are considered for the salary report.

</p>

<p>Here is what the study was using:</p>

<p>

The BLS data are a representative sample of employed lawyers. The sample includes lawyers employed in law firms, state and local government, federal government, in-house lawyers in businesses, and nonprofits. Lawyers, as defined by the BLS classification (SOC), “represent clients in criminal and civil litigation and other legal proceedings, draw up legal documents, and manage or advise clients on legal transactions. May specialize in a single area or may practice broadly in many areas of law.” Equity partners and solo practitioners are not included in the survey. The estimates for May 2009 are calculated using six semiannual panels collected over a three-year period: May 2009, November 2008, May 2008, November 2007, May 2007 and November 2006. The overall national response rate for the six panels is 78.2 percent based on establishments and 74.5 percent based on employment.

</p>

<p>So it doesn’t include solos, might not include contract lawyers, but also doesn’t include equity partners or lawyers who have moved on to business roles.</p>

[graduated31]

<p>T14 law grad here. I agree with pretty much everything Lazykid says. Anything is possible, of course. But you are serious going against some major headwinds going to a place like ASU for law school. That being said, I guess a pertinent question would be what kind of law you see yourself practicing? If you want to do divorce cases or trust/estates or personal injury, its certainly possible to do financially ok in those fields with a law degree from ASU. What you are really talking about is going solo then. But if you want to be involved in complex litigation and transactions, you need to join biglaw or a highly regarded govt agency (DOJ, etc.), and your chances of that from ASU is…well…not good. Yes, lightning can strike. But cmon…</p>

<p>A couple other things to think about. The vast majority of associates from biglaw firms don’t stay there. Over 90% leave. They start their own firm or go in-house or join mid-size law firms due to work/life balance issues. So its not like those jobs are reserved for lawyers from regional schools. In fact, alot of those jobs are taken up by refugees from biglaw. So you have to understand that, to a large degree, you are, and will always be, competing with biglaw refugees with T14 credentials and biglaw experience. And biglaw experience is huge because most of your legal training comes from on the job experience. So tell me…would you hire someone who’s been practicing solo right after law school, or somone who has trained under partners at biglaw?</p>

<p>I’m just saying, go in with your eyes wide open. The practice of law is totally changing. Its getting more global, more outsourced, more profit-driven. Clients are getting more and more aggressive in containing legal bills. The bottom line is that margins are getting squeezed, and the amount of work going to lower-tiered law firms and solo firms are getting squeezed as well, in both amount and $$. I just don’t see how, in this type of environment, going to a law school outside T14 makes any good economic sense. Now, if you’ve got a passion for the law that’s driving you, you should pursue that passion. But that’s not an economic argument, is it.</p>

<p>By the way, I would not read into the UA grad at Williams & Connolly. W&C is one of the hardest law firms to get into in the WORLD, and it has a very small entering class to begin with (less than 20, I think) with only one office. There are Harvard law grads who are chomping at the bit to go to that firm. I personally know 5 people from top 5 law schools who were in the top 1/3 of their class but didn’t get a summer invite. You have no idea what this UA grad was all about…maybe a connection, or maybe she was an olympic athlete, or whatever. Rest assured that she wasn’t a run of the mill “top” student. Why should W&C hire outside from a T10, let alone T14, when they’ve got T5 law students near the top of their class with clerking experiencing knocking down their doors?</p>

[LazyKid]

<p>

Nope. You can look at actual numbers, or just continue to insist that your uninformed preconceptions are irrefutably correct. It’s become pretty obvious what you’ve chosen.

</p>

<p>You just aren’t good at math, are you. Last year, around 30,000 legal jobs were available nation-wide for entry level. With more than 45,000 total number of law students enrolled for each class. Do the math. Many newly minted lawyers will fail to even get a JOB. And, now you are arguing that, despite all the evidences, “ALL Lawyers will make over 100k”? What are you smoking?</p>

<p>

How many Fordham grads get biglaw jobs? A small minority.

</p>

<p>Fordham may not be a T-14. But, it places very well compared to what its rank would suggest. That was my point: outside of T-14, consider strong ‘regionals’.</p>

<p>Since you keep on insisting, I will bite:</p>

<p>[Hiring</a> from top schools steady in '08](<a href=“http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202428438260&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1]Hiring”>http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202428438260&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1)</p>

<p>In 2008, Fordham placed 44% of its graduates into NLJ 250 firms. In that year, Fordham had the 17th highest firm-placement out of all law schools in the nation. This placement is only slightly worse than a lower T-14, such as Georgetown. For a school ranked top 30, that is a pretty damn good accomplishment. And, I wouldn’t call 44% of grads getting respectable firm jobs as “A small minority” of the student body.</p>

<p>Edit: I am not a Fordham alum nor will be attending. I have no dog in this fight - except it is a strong regional school worth consideration in case one misses out on T-14.</p>

<p>

The success rate of Fordham students seeking biglaw jobs is assuredly far, far lower than the success rate of ASU grads seeking jobs with small or midsized Arizona firms.

</p>

<p>I strongly doubt this.</p>

<p>

Apparently it’s not as difficult to grasp as the idea that the market with the largest number of jobs could also have the largest number of job seekers, and that the latter number could exceed the former. And I’ll assume the idea that someone could rationally want anything other than an NYC biglaw job is simply inconceivable.

</p>

<p>During OCI, even among T-14 schools, breaking into NYC biglaw is far easier than say, breaking into DC, San Fran, or Chicago BigLaw. (other major markets) Why? NYC has the most Biglaw jobs. It is where the action is at. If you strike out on NYC BigLaw, sorry to say, you aren’t good to get BigLaw in pretty much any other market. (without serious connection) This is the point, hence, my argument that one can’t reasonably expect BigLaw or lucrative law job when ruling out working in NYC completely.</p>

<p>

So it doesn’t include solos, might not include contract lawyers, but also doesn’t include equity partners or lawyers who have moved on to business roles.

</p>

<p>Hence my point that “ALL lawyers median salary = six fig” is flat out wrong. The study includes lawyers’ salaries in law firms, select PI, government, and in-house. The study ignores (many) unemployed lawyers, contract/temp lawyers, lawyers folding clothes at GAP, lawyers working as legal aids, lawyers as solos, etc.</p>

<p>Furthermore, how does this study define what ‘law firm’ is? Any minimum number of lawyers the ‘firm’ needs to have in order to be considered as ‘law firm’. I suspect those personal injury/family divorce lawyer shops with 3 lawyers in it would count as ‘law firms’ in this study.</p>

[LazyKid]

<p>

A couple other things to think about. The vast majority of associates from biglaw firms don’t stay there. Over 90% leave. They start their own firm or go in-house or join mid-size law firms due to work/life balance issues. So its not like those jobs are reserved for lawyers from regional schools. In fact, alot of those jobs are taken up by refugees from biglaw. So you have to understand that, to a large degree, you are, and will always be, competing with biglaw refugees with T14 credentials and biglaw experience. And biglaw experience is huge because most of your legal training comes from on the job experience. So tell me…would you hire someone who’s been practicing solo right after law school, or somone who has trained under partners at biglaw?

</p>

<p>Some people seem to be forgetting this rather important point: that landing that first law firm job is HUGE in legal industry. Not every lawyer, despite 10 years into the career, will have the chance to work at high-paying law jobs. (These jobs require serious law firm experience)</p>

[AzStUn]

<p>AZ State Bar has economic info for AZ attorneys: [Arizona</a> Attorney - September 2010](<a href=“Arizona Attorney - September 2010”>Arizona Attorney - September 2010)</p>

<p>In my 30s I went to ASU law (can’t remember exactly, but my LSAT was around 170, undergrad GPA around 3.8, had done a doctoral program, worked, etc.) because I wanted to be in AZ. I lived a couple of hours away from Tempe to be in a small town and commuted. Graduated 2d or 3d in my class. Took a job with a small PI firm in a small town (<30,000; those that think that attorneys in small PI firms [Plaintiff] make only $40k or don’t get involved in complex litigation do not understand this area of law; tort reform wouldn’t be such a hot button topic if PI attorneys were stuck at $40k).</p>

<p>Worked part-time there to spend time with family, but when I switched to full-time three years out, made 6 figures. Went solo 5 years out of law school in the same small town to get out of the litigation grind still making 6 figures. One of my best law school buddies (who had dismal, dismal grades and rankings because of a need to support a family during law school) went solo even sooner and was/is making 6 figures in the same time frame as well.</p>

<p>Don’t understand why anyone would go through the boredom of law school with the goal of wanting to work for someone else in a corporate environment with scores or hundreds of other attorneys. To each his/her own. Law is about results. People will pay lawyers who get results. But the situation in which you practice has to meet your desires. Know a guy who had a cool international, space-law job making lots of money in a cool international city. Quit that because, quite frankly, working in huge corporate settings is not a way most people want to spend their lives.</p>

<p>Seems that many want to go to big law because they don’t know how to generate clients on their own. The trap there is that even after many, many years in big law lots and lots of attorneys still don’t know how to generate clients. If you don’t want to generate clients on your own, and want to be an employee (whether or not they call you a “partner” or a “member”), then pick a program that will lead to govt or big law. If you want to be your own boss, pick a program where you can develop the skills to generate clients. Either way, you’ll have to train yourself in how to practice law. Law school rankings just don’t matter much to most of America. Sorry. They just don’t. No more than most people know or care where their docs went to medical school. If you don’t get “offered” a job, then you’ve got to make your own. If your goal is to work in a huge corporate setting, there are many easier (and cheaper and faster) ways to accomplish that than going to law school.</p>

[oldlaw]

<p>I’m sure that there are plenty of ASU graduates, especially in Arizona, with well-paying jobs; keep in mind, though, that these are the top of the class and/or Law Review people. Everyone else will have to scramble-some, like AzStUn, will set up shop and do very well. Az seems to have a lot of business savvy; keep in mind that others will set up shop and not do well at all. And as a previous poster pointed out, there were 45,000 law grads for 30K total jobs-not good odds other than self-employment.
And regarding government work; job listed for AAG in major western state, needs minimum five years experience-starting salary, $5250/month. So at least five years as a lawyer for $63K in a state job. One day you may make 100K working there, but in how many years? And you can bet there will be a bushel basket of resumes for that job.
And the feds pay better: but do you know anyone who has gotten a job as a lawyer with the federal government lately?
It’s a tough market all the way around; if you go to law school knowing this, you’ll be ok; if you go with a fantasy of a 100K anytime soon after graduation, things may be a bit disappointing. I’m not saying you won’t make 100K after graduation-I guarantee some ASU law grads do-but these are the top people; everyone else will be working hard to establish themselves for years. It’s a tough busines-just about like everything else-with no guarantees.</p>

[Coolbrezze]

<p>

BTW: I have a 50k grad school scholarship and undergrad is almost 100% paid for so it would cost me about 10k in law school tuition over the 3 years.

Yes, Arizona State University law school would be a great choice.</p>

[yummycheese]

<p>So how exactly do lawyers generate clients on their own?</p>

[LazyKid]

<p>Making six figures by going solo is possible, but highly unlikely for many lawyers. And, I would rather work at a large firm dealing with complex transactions/litigation than working solo on insurance defense, personal injury, or family divorce law.</p>

[AzStUn]

<p>Complex litigation and PI work are not mutually exclusive (insurance defense is often done by mid/large regional firms and, especially for MVA, by smart small, local counsel; all managed by software programs devised by bean counters–still, no reason to think that is any different than most corporate litigation). Ask anyone who’s done product liability (on either side). Ask anyone who’s done toxic torts. Ask anyone who’s litigated. Attorney contributions to law schools and partners hob nobbing at law school mixers should not be confused with the actual practice of law in this type of analysis.</p>

<p>Complex transactional work is a different matter; but name me the number of firms that permit low-level associates significant decision-making authority (i.e., that permit them to actually practice law rather than slop at the trough of Discovery /Due Diligence or vomit at Dispositive Motion Practice/Opinion of Counsel Letters) in deals and I’ll name you the fingers and toes that I have.</p>

<p>Sure, if a lawyer wants to be an employee of a bureaucracy, with all the complexities of bureaucracy, then large firm and/or govt work is a good fit. The practice of law in a small firm is complex enough for most of us: because I am an attorney, I’ve traveled to three continents in the past couple of years as a solo (and I mean solo–no employees and no other lawyers–in a small town having never worked for a large firm or the govt), and I’ll tell you, that’s complex enough if for scheduling reasons alone. What complexity are you looking for?</p>

<p>I’m not posting to argue. I don’t care what the readers of this forum do. It does not affect me. I’m just saying don’t let conventional wisdom of what the practice of law entails determine your career aspirations or your career tactics and strategy. Law, unlike medicine/health care, is flexible and open to a wide variety of approaches. As long as you are dependent upon others to bring you clients, however, you will be dependent upon their visions (and not your own) of what a lawyer should be. You do not have to be enslaved by that vision working only either for a bureaucracy or for $40k a year. You can create your own path. Sure, it’s a risk, it’s no guarantee of money, but it is the American way, and you will have good company as most US attorneys practice solo or in very small firms.</p>

<p>How to generate clients? Offer them what they need. It’s not about hosting conferences. It’s not about hosting seminars. It’s not about taking them to lunch. It’s not about flattering them. It’s about offering them to do what they cannot themselves. If you graduate law school and don’t know what you can offer like that, then you are doomed to years and years of figuring it out afterwards (and being shed like yesterday’s dust in the lint screen of life). The first step is figuring out who do you want as a client and what you can offer them (my hint: avoid wanting any client who is a prima donna, mean or an imbecile). Second step: say “no” to every potential client that you don’t like (my hint: say “no” like you mean it). Period. More lawyers go wrong accepting bad clients than turning down work. Ask anyone who generates his/her own clients in enough of a volume to support his/her family.</p>

<p>Going to ASU or to some other school a score higher in the rankings simply does not matter in whether you can generate clients. If you, or anyone, is going to law school because it’s supposed to be easy money once you join the guild, you probably should work for a bureaucracy, and, if you can’t get into a top school, go to work for fast food where TV advertising brings in the clients you can’t generate on your own. That’s the choice you have: generate the clients; don’t generate the clients. If you don’t generate the clients, you are as expendable as the night manager at a fast food joint. Ask the thousands of “senior” assocatiates and “junior” partners tossed aside to become “consultants” in the past few years.</p>

<p>Really, it’ll be OK to go to ASU law. I just expanded my office space today (still no one else but me) to accomodate my files. If I hire, I’ll be looking for attorneys who can function on their own, who want their own clients, and who do not expect me to feed them very long. In exchange, I’ll introduce them to folks who make good clients. I’ll post (if I do rather than taking a recommend) on Craigslist, not OCI. That’s the future of good law careers, if I do say so myself. That’s what you should prepare yourself for, IMHO, if you want a good law career.</p>