<p>I didn’t misunderstand your post. I don’t care which interpretation you like. Even if you wanted it to start in 2003 (I bet it didn’t, that “lawyers must think with precision” condescension sounds way too boomerish, but it actually makes no difference) you’d still be at least a mid-level associate come the crash. That’s not the position of someone looking to enter law school now. It’s not even analogous. Have you even looked at the attrition rate of firms? The idea that you can just bounce around for 10 years is an idea totally divorced from the reality of the market.</p>
<p>Demosthenes49, you’re wrong.</p>
<p>You did misunderstand my post; you wrote (wrongly) that I had stated that my experience was 10+ years “ago”. That is not what I stated.</p>
<p>You can certainly bounce around for 10+ years; I see plenty of resumes from people who do so today. Start at Sullivan & Cromwell, bounce over to Sidley, then head to Kirkland & Ellis; not hard to do if you’re coming from HYS (or Columbia).</p>
<p>If you and others you know weren’t able to do such things, it must be because you and they made poor career choices and/or did not come from HYS or Columbia. Which is it?</p>
<p>So your new theory is, “it’s totally possible to spend 10 years in biglaw, just go to HYS and start at a V5!” Thanks for that advice. Sounds awfully familiar to “it’s totally possible to get biglaw from a TTT, just end up top 5%!” No one is saying it’s impossible to spend 10 years in biglaw. It’s obviously possible since partners exist. The point is that it is both highly unlikely and generally outside your control. </p>
<p>Sure, if the stars align and you end up at HYS, and then do well enough to go to S&C, and then get lucky enough to get the substantive work needed to move laterally, and there happens to be an opening for a midlevel with your skills at the time you want to move, and then you get substantive and transferable work again, and then you manage to find a place still hiring lateral senior associates that fits your particular skill set, then you can spend 10+ years in biglaw. Congratulations.</p>
<p>But don’t worry, if things didn’t line up for you it’s got nothing to do with luck. It’s because you made “poor career choices.” </p>
<p>Oh, and since you neglected to respond to my point I assume I was correct that you in fact started far sooner than 2003. </p>
<p>Demosthenes49, you’re wrong, again. You also are avoiding answering my question about your background (which indicates that you did not go to a top school or work in a top firm).</p>
<p>As you should know (but clearly don’t), large law firm associates are most marketable when they are midlevels. Anyone from HYS (and Columbia) can get a job with a large law firm- it doesn’t take great grades. Once you’ve been with one for over a year, you can move to another one or stay put until you’re a midlevel. Once you’re a midlevel, you are very marketable and can move to another one and hang there for a while. That whole process can easily fill up 7-8 years of a career, even if you’re not a good lawyer.</p>
<p>It does not take having “substantive and transferable” work to lateral around as a junior associate or midlevel. Unless you are a complete screw-up, you will have plenty of work, and what that a junior associate does is substantive? My first year in a large firm was mostly proofreading and doing distributions, as well as drafting ancillary documents and tracking down things for closings.</p>
<p>It sounds like unlike basically everyone from HYS/Columbia, you didn’t have this career track or the option to have it. Thus either you were unable of getting a job in a large law firm (meaning you did not go to a top school), or you screwed up the large law firm job that you had. Pity you.</p>
<p>I avoid answering questions about my background to preserve my anonymity. That’s entirely different from avoiding answering your false dilemma, which I did because it was stupid. Honestly, like “poor career choices and/or did not come from HYS or Columbia” are the only reasons someone couldn’t spend 10 years in biglaw. Nevermind all that pyramidal structure stuff, increased use of automation and outsourcing, diminished demand for biglaw services, increased size of in-house teams, and the specialization of the lateral market. Nah, it’s all either that people didn’t go to HYS or “made poor career choices.” </p>
<p>You’re right that associates are the most marketable as midlevels. But that’s only true if they hadn’t spent the previous 3 years running doc review projects. Lateral moves are also almost always done on a practice-group basis, meaning there has to be an opening in your group for someone of your skills. There’s definitely plenty more slots available than for senior associates, but it isn’t like anyone can waltz over to another firm as a midlevel candidate whenever they choose. </p>
<p>Since I was right about you starting long before 2003, and since it’s pretty well known that the market post-recession isn’t the same as the market pre-recession, why do you insist on pretending it is?</p>
<p>You stated that my experience was 10+ years “ago”. That’s not at all what I stated. I stated that my experience lasted “for 10+ years”. That period, for all you know, could have ended last week. Even if it started in 2003, 5 years of the 10+ years could well have been post-2008 crash. That is certainly experience in “this economy”.</p>
<p>I feel like this is somewhat a meaningless distinction, since if you have 10+ years of experience it follows that some of your experience was 10+ years ago. Besides, the recession really hit the law market hard for new grads. A lawyer who graduated from a top law school and had 5+ years of work experience in Big Law by the 2008 crash was probably ok. It’s not really comparable to the experience of a law student who graduated in 2012 or whatever.</p>
<p>Julliet, I appreciate your position, but I did a job change post-crash and have definitely directly dealt with the post-crash employment market. </p>
<p>I also keep up with younger alumni (who graduated just before and since the crash) and they still have no problems getting big firm jobs, even as midlevel laterals. They have had much easier times than I have had, as someone more senior. Getting a job at a senior level has always been trickier than at a junior level because at a senior level, your skills (and book of business, if required) has to find a match; at a junior level, as long as your resume has a minimum level of school and perhaps grades on it, jobs can be found. Both types of jobs may have dried up somewhat, but the result is that somewhat rare senior-level jobs have become almost unheard of, and numerous junior jobs have become less numerous, but still available.</p>
<p>Demosthenes49, if you were capable of getting and keeping a big firm job, you would be able to say so. Just like nobody believes that Allison Lundergan Grimes did not vote for Obama and doesn’t admit to it “for the sanctity of the ballot box” or whatever, I do not believe your excuse. I’ve posted tons of personally-identifying details in numerous threads.</p>
<p>Do you not understand julliet’s point either? She was quite clear: “A lawyer who graduated from a top law school and had 5+ years of work experience in Big Law by the 2008 crash was probably ok. It’s not really comparable to the experience of a law student who graduated in 2012 or whatever.” Does it sound like she cares if you also did a job change post-crash? I’ll answer for you: no, she doesn’t, because even then it’s “not really comparable to the experience of a law student.” I added some emphasis so you’d read it this time.</p>
<p>Incidentally, that’s been one of my main points too. The other being that your view of the ability to remain in biglaw is hopelessly unrealistic. Amusingly, you complain yourself of the very points I raised against your position: “Getting a job at a senior level has always been trickier than at a junior level because at a senior level, your skills (and book of business, if required) has to find a match.” Sounds awfully similar to: “Lateral moves are also almost always done on a practice-group basis, meaning there has to be an opening in your group for someone of your skills.” Whatever happened to all that ‘lawyers must read carefully’ stuff?</p>
<p>As for: “Demosthenes49, if you were capable of getting and keeping a big firm job, you would be able to say so.” I’ve often said that ad hominem is the sign of a losing argument. You can’t compete with the substance of my points, so instead you try to pretend that I’m somehow deficient. I’m not really sure why you think anyone would care whether I have a biglaw job or not though. We’re talking about the state of the lateral market. Plenty of non-biglaw associates keep track of that. </p>
<p>Demosthenes49, you’re not being forthright with us, and you’re wrong.</p>
<p>First, if you had a career background relevant to lateraling from one big law firm to another, you should be willing to say so. You claim that you can’t for “anonymity” but simply stating relevant details alone would certainly not break your anonymity; you’ve posted plenty of identifying details about yourself in other respects so I must question your reasons for avoiding the question. That is certainly not an ad hominem attack, and you’re bringing it upon yourself by your evasive behavior.</p>
<p>Second, did you read any of my immediately-prior post? As I stated, I keep up with younger alumni who still regularly lateral from one large law firm to another, and they graduated both just before the 2008 and crash and in various years since then. It is certainly not “unrealistic” to remain in big law firms for 7-8+ years- at least for anyone who went to a decently-ranked school.</p>
<p>So please be more careful in reading my posts and please stop being less than forthright about your history.</p>
<p>Except for the top ten law schools, law schools are generally very easy to gain admission and there are more spots than apllicants.</p>
<p>HappyAlumnus, I believe that you graduated in the 1990s. You also state that you went to Harvard. </p>
<p>Your experiences may disprove the idea that no one ever laterals in BigLaw, but anecdote is not data. It is an absolute certainty that many people will not be able to lateral in BigLaw, and that most people who start off in BigLaw simply are not there eight years down the road. I won’t repeat the great points that have already been made, but you have refused to refute any of them.</p>
<p>“I did it, so you can, too, unless you’re a loser!” is not career advice so much as self-preening ego stroking.</p>
<p>@HappyAlumnus: I’m being perfectly forthright, it’s just that what I’m telling you isn’t what you want to hear. That’s ok though, I imagine I’ll get over not divulging to you my life story. It helps that it’s a desperate dodge on your part. As entertaining as it would be for my personal background to affect the state of the lateral hiring market, I’m afraid it’s just not the case.</p>
<p>I get that you keep up with younger alumni. That seems like a nice thing for you to do, but it’s still totally irrelevant. You need a lot more than a few anecdotes to get a statistically viable sample. Lateral hiring was up right after the crash (layoffs meant a heavily decreased supply of the juniors who would have turned into midlevels), but now it’s starting to [url=<a href=“http://www.nalp.org/0314research]slow[/url”>NALP - National Association for Law Placement | Lateral Hiring Slows Down for the Second Year in a Row]slow[/url</a>] as the class sizes realign. There’s no reason to expect that trend to change in the future. </p>
<p>No one is saying that it’s impossible for people to stay in biglaw. But it’s unrealistic to think anyone can stay if they want. Slowing midlevel hiring, law firm notorious [url=<a href=“http://fortune.com/2013/01/11/why-are-lawyers-such-terrible-managers/]attrition[/url”>Why are lawyers such terrible managers? | Fortune]attrition[/url</a>], the pyramidal structure of law, the decreased demand for BigLaw work, and the specifics of hiring mean it is highly unrealistic any given person can stay in BigLaw for 10 years. Sure, some people become senior associates. Most don’t.</p>
<p>Demosthenes49, no, you are not being forthright. </p>
<p>Ariesasthena, you’re right; many people in Biglaw are not there 8 years down the road. Except for the people who were laid off in 2009 or so, most people who are not in Biglaw 8 years down the road are not there by choice, though, not because of a lack of opportunities.</p>
<p>Long Biglaw careers more available than other options</p>
<p>I had lunch yesterday with a few alumni who graduated in 2008 and post-crash. Some were still in Biglaw, and some had voluntarily left to work in-house. I mentioned that when I was junior, it was common and easy to bounce from one Biglaw firm to another. Their response? “Yes, if you want to get an interview in a Biglaw firm now as a lateral you just get a headhunter and line up the interviews, and [NOTE THIS:] it’s probably more common now than before the crash to remain in Biglaw for a long time because today, compared to pre-crash years, there are fewer opportunities outside Biglaw, and so people stay in Biglaw longer.”</p>
<p>Sample of 50 classmates supports my views</p>
<p>In addition, in thinking about the roughly 50 classmates whose careers I have kept up with and see every now and then: every single one who wanted to remain in Biglaw did so. Not one wished to be in Biglaw but has been unable to do it. (And everyone who wanted to be in Biglaw had many job offers in Biglaw at graduation). So for those 50, the door has been open wide to Biglaw at all times, as long as they wanted it open. </p>
<p>Demosthenes49 has no personal experience or data to support views</p>
<p>Demosthenes49, you have provided nothing that constitutes a statistically viable sample to support your views. Nor have you provided anything whatsoever about your background in this thread that would indicate that you are someone who had Biglaw opportunities at any point and thus would know anything about Biglaw, or lateraling from one firm to another. Unless you can provide either, your assertions are just by someone who is bitter that a Biglaw job was not available upon graduation from a mid- or lower-tier school or at any time since, but who has no data or personal experiences whatsoever that provide any information relevant to the assertions that you’re making. </p>
<p>**The internet **has killed the legal profession in the US. </p>
<p>Now you can google the verbiage for simple legal documents. The more complicated stuff can be offshored to India where a vast army of English speakers can do the work for a fraction of the cost, then only one American lawyer in the US need sign off on it.</p>
<p>@HappyAlumnus: Forthright means “going straight to the point; frank; direct; outspoken.” I’m being perfectly frank about my total unwillingness to divulge personal information and about my utter disdain for any claim that it’s relevant. How’s that for direct?</p>
<p>As for a statistically viable sample, did you miss the links in my last post? If so, [url=<a href="http://www.betterlegalprofession.org/Attrition]here’s[/url">http://www.betterlegalprofession.org/Attrition]here’s[/url</a>] a fun website for looking at associate attrition by city. [url=<a href="Centers & Institutes | Georgetown Law[/url</a>] a fairly detailed study examining attrition rates. That one’s a little higher since its data set includes the crash, but even ignoring that it’s much higher than you can account for. [url=<a href=“http://www.nalp.org/0314research]Here[/url”>NALP - National Association for Law Placement | Lateral Hiring Slows Down for the Second Year in a Row]Here[/url</a>] is research showing the decreasing demand for laterals. No surprise, as class sizes slowly adjust to the “new normal.” In case it’s not clear, decreased demand for laterals means it’s harder for midlevels to “just move firms,” as you advise. [url=<a href="https://peermonitor.thomsonreuters.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/2014_PM_GT_Report.pdf]Here’s[/url">https://peermonitor.thomsonreuters.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/2014_PM_GT_Report.pdf]Here’s[/url</a>] proof of decreasing demand for legal services. Less demand means firms need fewer lawyers. That means kicking out more associates.</p>
<p>I could go on, but I’m guessing you’ll just ignore these links like you ignored the last ones. But don’t worry, the legal profession only adds 40,000 people a year. I’m sure the whole 50 you’ve kept in touch with are really really representative. </p>
<p>Demosthenes49, I had looked through your links. You’re completely missing my point, and no, you’re not being forthright.</p>
<p>My point is that people who want to remain in Biglaw for a long time can do so if they want. Of course, as your links show, associate attrition is high. That’s how it’s always been; people come to Biglaw, get trained and leave over the course of the typical 8-10 year associate period. </p>
<p>My point, though, which you don’t seem to get, and which your links don’t address, is that if you don’t want to leave Biglaw, and prefer to bounce around from one firm to another, it’s certainly doable for anyone who could get a Biglaw job in the first place and is at least marginally competent. Yes, there are fewer opportunities than before, but as I’ve stated, there are still plenty of opportunities for those who want them.</p>
<p>Again, you have provided no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.</p>
<p>In addition, you are NOT forthright. You claim that you can’t or won’t give information about yourself due to privacy concerns. Your claim is dishonest; you won’t give any information about yourself because you have zero personal experience in Biglaw and did not attend a school that would have give you Biglaw opportunities—and thus you have zero credibility for posting anything about Biglaw, and you know that you’d be “outed” as someone whose views are thus not authoritative if you shared personal information about yourself.</p>
<p>It was my comment about the long term viability of BigLaw that triggered this argument. (For the record, “I went to Harvard and worked in BigLaw, so shut up” doesn’t really seem to be convincing logic.)</p>
<p>The comment was made in the context of loans. While you can pay down the loans on a BigLaw salary, you need a BigLaw salary to do so. I happen to think that almost every law school is overpriced at $250,000, plus interest. In order to pay that off, you need ten years of BigLaw, and even then, you are behind the eight ball in terms of saving for a house, having kids, enabling a parent to stay at home with the kids, etc. </p>
<p>If your life plan involves beating the odds, and, if you do beat the odds, continuing to beat the odds and then suffer for ten years to barely break even, you might want to find a new life plan.</p>
<p>@HappyAlumnus: Your point is that people can remain in BigLaw for 10+ years if they want to. My point is that this is untrue for the vast majority of associates. BigLaw is pyramidal. That means there are fewer slots for senior associates than midlevels, and fewer slots for midelevels than juniors. Fewer slots means not everyone can get in. When you factor in decreasing demand (that means BigLaw needs fewer associates), attrition, layoffs, and all that other stuff I already talked about, you end up with even fewer slots available. Amusingly, for all your demands of evidence, your only support for your position is your word that you really did talk to a statistically insignificant number of grads. </p>
<p>Also, it’s pretty funny how you get from me not giving information to a conclusion that requires information. I keep information about myself private for a number of reasons. I certainly wouldn’t want anyone to think the information I give is based on some personal authority. That’s why I provide links. Evidence is far more persuasive than grandiose claims about how special I am. You should remember that, next time you remind us all you went to Harvard.</p>
<p>Demosthenes, my point is completely valid. Most associates do not remain in Biglaw for 10+ years BY CHOICE, and the decreasing number of openings matches the decreasing number of people who BY CHOICE want to be in Biglaw. </p>
<p>Again, you have not provided any evidence to support your claims. Nor have you shown that you have any relevant experience for your claims.</p>
<p>Yes, I do mention that I went to HLS because it’s relevant for discussions such as Biglaw-related ones; I know what I’m talking about because Biglaw is the standard career track coming from HLS. It certainly does not mean that I’m “special” in any way. Those of us who went to places like HYS, Columbia, etc. don’t see each other as “special” at all–and your claims that I am somehow “special” further indicate that you did not attend a well-ranked school and thus likely didn’t have a Biglaw career path. Demosthenes, when it comes to Biglaw and well-ranked law schools, you’re definitely on the outside, looking in.</p>
<p>You claim they don’t remain by choice. You’ve presented no evidence that this is true. On the other hand, I’ve presented an awful lot of evidence about attrition rates, decreasing demand, and the pyramidal structure of law. So, the reader can either go with your unsubstantiated claims, or with the evidence. That’s for them to decide. I think it’s unlikely they’ll be persuaded by your assertion that my evidence doesn’t really exist.</p>
<p>That you went to Harvard is totally irrelevant to any BigLaw discussions. That’s why it’s so funny. I’ve managed to give lots and lots of people advice without ever telling where I went to school. So have most the other people on this board. That’s because the status of the speaker is irrelevant, both to the state of law school application and the state of the legal market. The constant need to remind us about HLS seems to mostly be some kind of safety blanket. Hence, “if you went to a school like HLS you can do whatever you want!” That’s also why you so desperately need to convince yourself that I’m “definitely on the outside, looking in.” Because if I’m not on the outside, then just maybe law isn’t in the boom it used to be. </p>