<p>I feel like practicing a couple of decades has harmed your reading skills. Let me know when you improve them so can have a proper discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You actually have to spend two years (four semesters, plus one summer) at ITAM for the dual degree. And I can’t see that this is any kind of game-changer for UT. I don’t think anyone is going to be interested in it except native Spanish speakers who want to practice in Mexico. That’s probably a pretty small percentage of law applicants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It might or might not be for the actual school. For rankings purposes, though, it will have zero effect. Zero. And it won’t catapult the school to national prominence, either. Moreover, Mexico is hardly either a center for deals or a burgeoning market for them (it’s BRIC, not BRIC…M). Finally, even if a deal with Latin American law schools is established, the American firms establishing offices in Latin America prefer 14 other schools to the University of Texas, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.</p>
<p>I don’t see wy there’s so much hate against Texas Law. It’s the dominate school in one of the largest legal market in the US. I argue that proximity is very important to the strength of a school. Just look at all the top schools, all located in close proximity to the large legal markets, Bay Area, NYC, Chicago, and DC. There’s no comparable program within 1000 miles of UT - Austin. Hence, also the rise of UCLA.</p>
<p>If the trends hold, I think GULC will drop out of T14 soon, with Cornell to follow.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…with Stanford and Berkeley not so far away?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Houston is large as a legal market, but not that large. NYC, Chicago, DC, LA, and maybe other areas are just as large, if not larger. Aside from that, Texas firms still prefer the T14 to UT. UT dominates because the students self-select toward Texas firms, which is largely the case because UT has terrible placement outside of Texas and most UT students want to remain in Texas.</p>
<p>Proximity only helps so much. At the end of the day, being the best school in a city or region doesn’t help when the region is in demand by students at better schools. See: Georgetown in DC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can see Georgetown, but not Cornell.</p>
<p>
I think that may be true if there is a large difference between the schools (Yale vs. Texas). But if I were recruiting for a Houston firm during a recession and I’m looking at GULC and Texas Law, I would be more inclined to recruit at Texas Law. For one, there would be the reduced traveling expense for recruiters and candidates. Also, I assume the yield would be higher for Texas Law graduates.
If you combine Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth, it is quite a sizeable legal market.</p>
<p>I’ve been away from this site for a few days. Flowerhead, your posts are so filled with misinformation, it is startling! Which legal markets have been shrinking lately? California and Illinois, for starters. (Just look at the number of former major San Francisco firms that no longer even exist, for example.) Why? Their economies are in the tank. On the other hand, the major Texas firms have not had the massive layoffs of associates in recent years that their counterparts in the other cities you named have suffered. Why? In a word, energy. In two words: energy and economy. The Texas economy and population are growing in decided contrast to all the other states you named, with the exception of DC. New York, of course, will always have a strong legal practice, but if I were starting out today, I sure wouldn’t be looking at California or Illinois, frankly. As for all the schools in the T14 being “national schools.” Frankly, not true. The major Texas firms don’t even recruit at over a third of them. Why? They don’t have to. They go to UT and get the cream of the crop.</p>
<p>As for the ITAM program. I agree that Mexico is not as big a market as other countries in latin america, e.g., Brazil (which is why Obama will be in Rio next week). Having had to retain local counsel in those countries or special counsel to assist with projects in those countries, however, I can assure you I would jump at the chance to use an attorney trained at a top US law school to assist. Many firms now have Latin American practice groups and I think would lap those kids up. I focused on UT’s ITAM program because it is unique to UT and I practiced international project finance. Needless to say, they have lots of other irons in the fire under their new dean.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wasn’t talking about the “strength” of legal markets, just size. Size is what corresponds with the number of jobs, which in turn corresponds with which school is “better” at placing students into big firms than others, which corresponds with higher rankings, which corresponds with higher demand by more talented students, which further corresponds with higher rankings. You get the picture. The CA and Chicago markets are much larger than Houston. By the way, your arguments didn’t touch on why Chicago is somehow economically poorly positioned.</p>
<p>The energy market is strong, but I hope you realize that energy companies don’t typically turn to Texas firms as their first port of call. For M&A, they will typically turn to the Wall Street firms for their biggest deals. For litigation, they will typically turn to top litigation firms. For example, BP has turned to Sullivan & Cromwell for a lot of their corporate work in terms of divesting companies for funding damages, to Kirkland & Ellis for much of their defense litigation, to WilmerHale for environmental and regulatory work in DC. I know a few Houston firms on the case, but their roles are secondary to the non-Houston ones.</p>
<p>If you look at Profits-Per-Partner this year, Houston firms are hardly the epitome of growth. Meanwhile, CA firms like Quinn, Irell & Manella, and Gibson Dunn are boasting $2.5mm+ PPP (on great growth). Wall Street firms again posted huge gains this year, with Cahill reaching a $3.6mm PPP. Indeed, even Chicago firms like K&E posted a $3mm+ PPP. Texas firms are still sort of below $1.5mm PPP (even the big three), and this is simply because they can’t command premium rates because they aren’t premium firms. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure this is true. Baker Botts recruited at 13 of the T14 (see: [NALP:</a> DLE - Directory of Legal Employers](<a href=“http://www.nalpdirectory.com/dledir_search_results.asp?fscid=F120301&orgtypeid=F]NALP:”>http://www.nalpdirectory.com/dledir_search_results.asp?fscid=F120301&orgtypeid=F)). The same with Vinson & Elkins (see: [NALP:</a> DLE - Directory of Legal Employers](<a href=“http://www.nalpdirectory.com/dledir_search_results.asp?fscid=f075901&orgtypeid=F]NALP:”>http://www.nalpdirectory.com/dledir_search_results.asp?fscid=f075901&orgtypeid=F)). Fulbright recruited at 8 of the T14, which is way more than “a third of them” (see: [NALP:</a> DLE - Directory of Legal Employers](<a href=“http://www.nalpdirectory.com/dledir_search_results.asp?fscid=f038001&orgtypeid=F]NALP:”>http://www.nalpdirectory.com/dledir_search_results.asp?fscid=f038001&orgtypeid=F)). In other words, you are wrong. </p>
<p>Regarding Brazil, I reiterate: [Report</a> from Sao Paulo - Adam Smith, Esq.](<a href=“http://www.adamsmithesq.com/archives/2010/10/report-from-sao-paulo.html]Report”>http://www.adamsmithesq.com/archives/2010/10/report-from-sao-paulo.html)</p>
<p>It seems like you haven’t read it. Read it, then report back.</p>
<p>“Just the place for a Snark!” the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair. </p>
<p>“Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What i tell you three times is true.” </p>
<p>The crew was complete: it included a Boots–
A maker of Bonnets and Hoods–
A Barrister, brought to arrange their disputes–
And a Broker, to value their goods. . .</p>
<p>-Lewis Carroll</p>
<p>I will let others assess your reading comprehension skills, Flowerhead, but the last time I checked, Chicago was in Illinois (economy in the tank). I’m not math major, but I believe 5 is more than a third of 14. As for the other two firms, I will take you at your word, although interestingly, it was a VE partner who told me recently that a student should go to UT (and do well, of course) rather than Chicago if they want to practice at major firms in Houston. Anecdotal info, I know. (Personally, I was thinking more of Northwestern, Cornell, and the like.) </p>
<p>As for profits per partner, of course they must be higher when you are paying 50-60% in various income taxes and the COL is substantially higher. Also, when the ability even to make partner is so minimal, the reward must be great for the tremendous risk. Are you a partner at a major New York law firm, Flowerhead? Are you a lawyer paying those kids of taxes?</p>
<p>As for energy companies, BP is an English-based company. Who represents Exxon Mobil (headquartered in Houston) much of the time? (Insert Houston firm name here.) As for the BP fiasco, I am sure you are familiar with the concept of conflicts of interest. There were many. </p>
<p>Again, if you read my prior post, you will find no argument with me about New York as a major legal market, but lets look for a moment why many UT students (about 65% are from in state) would self-select remaining in Texas apart from obvious family ties, etc. First, Texas is a major legal market by your own admission. Second, Texas has one of the strongest, if not the strongest, economy in the country right now. One of every 5 jobs created in the last year were created in Texas. Third, Texas has no state or local income taxes and a substantially lower cost of living. More anecdotal information. I was driving a new Mercedes to work and living in my own brand new 2500 square foot townhouse with a 15 minute commute to the office as an associate, and that was long before the run up in associate salaries! Contrast that with the prospect of making the same base salary (not talking about bonuses at this point) somewhere where you have significant state and local income taxes, public transportation is your only option, and you live in a veritable hovel billing 200-300 hours a month, every month for years if you can last that long. No one really cares if you get burned out because there is always fresh-faced cannon fodder coming up behind you. Now, I’m not suggesting that Big Law anywhere doesn’t require seriously hard work, but there’s definitely another side to those high profits per partner you quote and it isn’t just hourly rates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Illinois isn’t California. Saying Illinois’s economy is in the tank, and then giving reasons for why California’s economy is in the tank, doesn’t prove that Illinois’s economy is in the tank.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s very nice. I actually know V&E’s hiring preferences, and UTexas is below the T14 in terms of how deep in each class they’re willing to go. They’ll still go deep for UT, but not as much as they would for a student from a T14. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This may be true for NYC firms, but it isn’t the case for K&E (which is HQ’d in Chicago, a city with a notoriously low cost of living). Moreover, PPP isn’t just a function of CoL, it’s a function of the rates partners can command. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really. V&E got some work, and so did Andrews Kurth. But really, those firms are just secondary to the big players. Let’s face it: when it comes to the important stuff, the TX firms will always play second fiddle to the best firms. I’m sorry if it hurts your self-esteem to realize that.</p>
<p>Now it isn’t exactly news that Texas has a lower cost of living than NYC (and other markets). At the same time, it isn’t exactly financial paradise there, either. I know many associates at the Big 3 Houston firms. Through them, I’ve learned that summer offer rates were horrendously low, that they’ve been stiffed on bonuses, that the salary structure is a little more condensed than NYC market, and that there have been significant layoffs (contrary to your claims). And Texas isn’t that big a legal market, either. Houston is big, but how many big firms are there? V&E, Baker Botts, and F&J. After that? I mean there are corporate firms (Haynes & Boone, Andrews Kurth, LLB&L, etc.), but they’re not exactly hiring machines (nor are they doing that well in this economy). Austin? Austin is a horrendously small legal market, and it’s also terrible for law firms. The cyclical nature of the work in Austin always takes out firms in a down turn (didn’t Weil have an Austin office not too long ago?). Because of its size, it’s also just as competitive as DC. Dallas? Dallas’s market is virtually nonexistent. </p>
<p>When you compare TX to LA, Chicago, NYC, DC, and the Bay Area you’ll realize (a) why it’s called a “secondary market” and (b) why placing students primarily in Texas doesn’t really make a school more prestigious. Texas simply doesn’t have top of the line firms, the most sophisticated work, etc. that other markets have. They’re all fine firms at the end of the day, but when you look at the league tables, the litigation rankings, the awards, etc. TX firms are nowhere to be found. Deal with it.</p>
<p>As I alluded above, I will weep all the way to the bank! </p>
<p>Once again I see you fail to mention where you work and what stellar credentials you have for your many claims… (Please, Bay Area firms? Which major ones are even left? You "know VE’s hiring preferences? Please!)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s saddening to see you take this so personally.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(a) You can question my background and how I know these things, but I can question yours too. That argument will get you nowhere, since this is an anonymous forum. For better, the anonymity improves discussion. For worse, it also prevents one from verifying information out of fear of being outed. So really, let’s not go there. I know what I know, and really there’s nothing I’d be willing to do to prove how I know it (lest I reveal my sources and threaten their job security). In a similar vein, I’m sure you’re not so willing to post your real name and your exact credentials.</p>
<p>(b) This is really an ad hominem attack. Where I am working and what I am doing is not necessarily relevant to the veracity of my statements. As someone who has been through law school and who was, at some point, a partner at a big firm, you should know that. And I’m not about to trumpet my accomplishments here. At the end of the day, you will just question whether that’s really my background.</p>
<p>CA firms that are doing better than TX firms? Gibson Dunn. Irell & Manella. Munger Tolles. Latham & Watkins. Quinn. Which “major bay area firms are left?” Morrison & Foerster. Wilson Sonsini. Cooley. Orrick. Those are the ones off the top of my head.</p>
<p>OK. You’re outed. You are just a law student, but good luck with your endeavors wherever you choose to practice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think you know what “outed” means. And just because I’m a law student, that doesn’t mean I don’t know people at places who give me the information that I post. In a similar vein, I’ve been criticizing the merits of your arguments, rather than use the fact that you were apparently a partner at a not-so-elite law firm to discredit your points.</p>
<p>Wow. I didn’t bother to read 95% of that, but I hope you two had fun.</p>
<p>In another word, UT-Austin is a very good school to be at and will continue to rise. whereas, GULC is going to fall.</p>
<p>Glad this thread turned into a ****ing match.</p>