Thursday, June 24, 2010

Let It Air Out: the Excrementitious NALP Class of 2009 Employment Report

NALP reports an 88.3% employment rate for the Class of 2009 – for those of whom employment status was known. Page 1 shows 36,046 reported jobs, out of 40,833 responses. Of this figure, only 35,002 responded to whether their job was full or part-time. Who knows? Maybe the 1,044 people who did not respond to this question were too embarrassed to report that they were working 80 hour weeks and pulling in $160K per year, right?!

Look! Solo practitioners make up 1,058 of the law firm jobs – out of the 20,145 who reported being in private practice. This means that such solos made up 5.3 percent of the private practice jobs for this graduating class. Another 6,749 graduates report working in firms of 2-10 lawyers – accounting for 33.5% of the private practice jobs.

On page two of this PDF, scroll down to Job Characteristics by Employer Type. There, we can see that 10.3 percent of all jobs listed – legal and non-legal positions – were reported as Part Time!! On the same chart, it shows that fully 24.9 percent of all jobs were reported as temporary positions!!

Now, head over to Source of Job – also on page 2. It shows that those who returned to their prior job constituted 7.7% of the total jobs for this graduating class. Yes, that law degree REALLY helped these people out, didn’t it?!?! Oh well, at least these people inadvertently helped their law school – and the NALP – reach a higher “job placement” rate! And that is what matters, after all. Referrals accounted for 15.1 percent of jobs reported. See, that is what real networking entails, i.e. taking advantage of one’s personal, business and political connections to land a job.

“For instance, a different survey conducted by NALP found that between 3,200 and 3,700 graduates with jobs in law firms had their start dates deferred beyond December 1, 2009, with many deferred well into 2010.”

Hmmm, for $ome rea$on, NALP counted these people as employed. Well, that makes the stats look nice, but how does allow the attorney to pay his bills and buy food? Also, how many of these were Biglaw deferments? After all, only 8,026 respondents, i.e. 39.84% of those in private practice, reported being hired by firms with 100+ attorneys.

“Separate research conducted by NALP revealed that law schools were very active in trying to mitigate the impact of the recession, with 42% of the law schools reporting that they provided on-campus post-graduate jobs for their students. This helps account for the fact that 3.5% of the jobs reported by the Class of 2009 were characterized as academic, compared to 2.3% for the Class of 2008. Overall, 69% of the academic jobs reported by the Class of 2009 were reported as temporary.[Emphasis mine]

Yes, the law schools – at all levels of prestige – love to game the rankings by providing their grads with dead-end, temporary jobs in the law school.

Check out the following statement made by James Leipold, Executive Shill at NALP, at the 2010 NALP Annual Education Conference:

“But Leipold told us that NALP is also counting deferred students as employed — even though NALP knows that some deferrals will never result in actual employment.

Since it was me, Leipold, and 11 other people who didn’t want to look tanned when they got back to work on Monday, I decided it was appropriate to question Leipold about this. Why was NALP providing “cover” for law schools when we all know that prospective law students will believe these inflated numbers? Doesn’t this make NALP complicit in this law school scam? To Leipold’s credit, he answered truthfully:

“If we said to law schools you have to report a significant percentage of your graduates as ‘unemployed,’ they wouldn’t do it.” [Emphases mine]

In the last analysis, NALP is complicit in this scam. It does not audit the schools’ figures. Likewise, the gutless, spineless, ball-less ABA does not require any outside, independent audit of employment and salary figures – as part of the accreditation process. The NALP does not even verify whether the schools are confirming what their graduates are reporting. And we already know that the law schools will NOT question their respondents’ info.

“Thank you for your note regarding salaries for our law school graduates. The very high salary you note is quite high, but it is what was reported to us.”

Dean Carolyn Jones at the University of Iowa College of Law responded to me, after I emailed her with regard to the reported high salary of $750,000 – for the Class of 2008. Apparently, you can report that you are making $1.2 million and the school will accept that figure as gospel and publish it. I guess they don’t have a duty to investigate such claims.

After looking at these figures, ask yourself what the 88.3% reported employment rate for the law school Class of 2009 REALLY looks like. Looking at these numbers, would YOU encourage or recommend a family member, close friend or co-worker - of modest means - to apply to law school?!


  1. "I am better than you"? Do you have any idea how you sound when you write things like that?

    Nando, I'm afraid the picture might be worse than even your numbers make them appear. At my "top tier" school, the majority of students were unable to find real legal jobs.

    Everyone, be sure to check out my latest post:

  2. To Doug JD2B: only a f*cking idiot would consider law school an "intellectual pursuit" I can't decide if I'd rather see you hit by a bus, or watch your face when you see your shitty grades after 1st semester

  3. Lol law school for an intellectual pursuit? Are you fcking kidding me?

    One thing to note about the stats is that from the looks of it, 2010 will be even worse.

  4. It's more like 88.3% UNEMPLOYED. What a bunch of liars.

  5. I think I'm gonna agree with Knut. Doug, your statement detracts from your credibility.

  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  7. Wow, Doug. You actually made a blog just to insult Nando. Your dedication to insulting and attacking us is becoming pretty creepy. Don't you have anything better to do? Perhaps you should see a psychiatrist before beginning 1L year.

  8. Ruh-roh...more bad news for the OneLs to ignore:

    Baker & McKenzie has confirmed that it has rescinded offers to 11 deferred associates in its New York office.

    The firm in January had put on hold its group of incoming first-year associates from the graduating class of 2009.

    Baker & McKenzie said its New York office "has been unable to accommodate" these 11 lawyers. "We regret having to make this decision, but unfortunately the work required for these individuals has not materialized to a sufficient degree," the firm said in a statement.

    We know, we know: "We don't want Biglaw anyway!!!"

  9. Yeah, "going to law school for the intellectual pursuit" has to be, hands down, the funniest and saddest line ever penned.

  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  11. No free advertising for your pathetic little website, Doug. Why don’t you stick to playing Xbox in your underwear, while your wife brings home the bacon? I didn’t know you had a preference for older men, by the way. What the hell possessed you to post that here, anyway? Are you suffering from a total mental episode?

    Enjoy your PiTT “legal education”. Be confident in the decision you made to attend this pre$TTigiou$ second tier sewer, and don’t look back. No one cares about your little journey.

  12. Here is a quick rundown: NALP published an 88.3% placement rate for the Class of 2009. Of this figure, 24.9 percent were TEMPORARY positions; 10.3% were PART-TIME; desperate SOLO PRACTITIONERS accounted for fully 2.9 percent of the overall employment rate – and 5.3 percent of the private practice jobs; 3,200 to 3,700 attorneys had their start dates DEFERRED – this alone would account for 8.9 percent to 10.3% of the total jobs reported!! And ACADEMIC POSITIONS provided employment to 3.5 percent of the respondents.

    And here is the kicker: 171 JDs and lawyers from the Class of 2009 found jobs as PARALEGALS!! Yes, because three years of one’s life, TONS of non-dischargeable debt and a law degree are required for one to become a paralegal, right?!?!

    Want more specifics? Go under SOURCE OF JOB on page 2. Only 28,730 Class of 2009 JDs bothered to answer the question regarding source of their employment. However, we can see that Fall OCI accounted for only 6,709 of these positions, or 23.4% – HOW MANY OF THE DEFERRED ASSOCIATES fall under this category? Spring OCI resulted in a massive 1.3% of the jobs reported under this category.

    In contrast:

    • Job fairs provided 656 jobs, i.e. 2.3 to those responding to this question, from this graduating class.

    • Job postings furnished 14 percent of the jobs – for a total of 4,012 positions.

    • Commercial internet sites were the source of employment for 2.5% of respondents – totaling 726 jobs.

    • Fully 7.7 percent of the total jobs were due to people returning to their prior job or industry. Yes, you read that correctly – 2,198 JDs returned to the jobs they had before entering law school! So, how can law school CDOs claim to have had a hand in such employment?!

    • “Other” accounted for 2,156 jobs – or 7.5 percent – to respondents.

    • Referrals resulted in employment for 4,338 JDs, i.e. 15.1 percent of respondents.

    • An intrepid, desperate 1,385 JDs from this class STARTED THEIR OWN PRACTICE! Yes, what a great sign of a thriving industry, huh? ONE THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-FIVE JDs from this graduating class felt the need to start their own practice. I guess those who defend legal malpractice cases will be doing well shortly!

    • Self-initiated/letters resulted in jobs for 20.5% of respondents – i.e. 5,887 JDs. Again, how did CDOs play a role in such employment?!

    • Temp hag agencies were the source of job for 288 JDs.

    Yes, law is a thriving industry, isn’t it, lemmings?!?! Sure it is, and Halle Berry brought me breakfast in bed earlier this morning, after spending the night.

  13. It actually seems like DOug has a preference for younger men. He is obsessed with posting on this blog. Even though none of the scambloggers even bothers to check his blog out or comment on it. Take Nando's advice. If you are comfortable in the knowledge that you are making a smart decision, there is no reason to gloat here like a little bitch. Move on with your life. And PiTTTsburgh?! What a goddamn joke of a law school.

  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  15. I printed out your last 2 posts and gave them to a co-worker who is considering leaving our cushy gov't job to go to TTTTT Drexel. These posts are instant classics! Keep up the good work, Nando.

  16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  17. Apparently, the supposed "3L at Yale" who lives in Baldwin City, Kansas loves this site. However, he cannot understand that when his stupid links get deleted, it means that they are not welcome here.

    So, Baldwin, are you on a big doc review project in the Lawrence area? Are you a summer associate for a Big firm in Baldwin City?!

    Everyone, this troll in Baldwin City has spent the following amount of time on this blog - since June 18: Well over eight hours, 30 visits, more than 196 actions - including more than 34 today (so far) and 114 on June 18th.

    Get a job and a girlfriend, loser.

  18. Hi troll! How are you?

    Residential customer between E 1400 Rd and E 1500 Rd and between N 500 Rd and N 400 Rd, eh? And YOU have the nerve to tell us to get a job?

  19. Doug's best quality is that he is going to be a 1L in the fall of 2011. It seems unlikely that he's even applied given that most schools do not open applications until the August before the incoming year. I can't wait to see piTT decline your application and you end up at CoasTTTTal Florida for your "intellectual pursuit."

  20. If anything, feed the troll poison

  21. can we bring the discussion back to the stats above. I think that user 'JJD' may be closer to the mark than he or she meant when they said closer to 88.3% UNemployment. Just look at the numbers published by NALP and aanalyzed by Nando. Someone would have to be an absolute fool, an embicile, to go to law school under these conditions.

    The jobs are going away, prospecticve student. Clients want smaller bills, and the firms in turn want a leaner staff. Even many of those who landed Biglaw were deferred well in 2010. We law grads all know that many of these jobs will never materialize. But NALP was nice enough to include them in the 'employed' category, anyway.

  22. Yeah, to be fair, that first comment doesn't sound like something Doug would say. Maybe he would, but it sounds a bit off I guess. I could be wrong though.

    In any case, I really do think that Doug is the exception to the rule if he is indeed telling the entire truth (we can't really know whether he is or not). The fact is that he apparently doesn't need to make a living, has free time on his hands, and isn't even going to take out loans at all in order to go. This makes him an exception to the general advice that we all give out to prospective law students.

    Now, as all current lawyers know, law school is pretty worthless as an intellectual pursuit, but if you truly have time to kill and you aren't going to put yourself in an unstable financial position no matter what the outcome of law school, I can't really fault you too much for taking the plunge.

    Doug isn't the type of guy we need to be preaching to, srsly.

  23. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  24. @ 2:20,

    Yes, Doug is such a big man. Have you seen his childish comments and tactics?! Who would put it past him to post the link above? I know he has nothing better to do than play video games all day long while his wife works. He has admitted as much.

    Also, I don't have time to respond to every garbage message Doug puts on the other scamblogs. If you like his blog so much, then keep visiting it. The reality of the situation is that Doug is a troll and none of the scam-bloggers gives a damn what he has to say about law school. (That *might* have something to do with the fact that he has not stepped foot in law school yet.)

    Lastly, nobody needs Doug's insincere offer to pay filing costs. He simply wants to see such a case get tossed out of court. Do you honestly believe that the guardians of the legal "profession", i.e. judges, are going to allow such a case to go in front of a jury - subjecting the industry to public embarrassment?!?!

  25. @12:19, 88% unemployed is going to be closer to the truth than 88% employed that NALP reported.

    Once you wade through all the shit, smoke, and mirrors that NALP used to come up with that 88.3%, there are a surprisingly low number of law grads employed in full-time, permanent, salaried positions as lawyers.

  26. What a terrible terrible statistics job. If the govt conducted the census the same way as the NALP, and let's be clear the census could use improving, then it would show that America has:

    1 billion people all of whom are in fantastic shape, heart disease & cancer free, happily married, a single time, and there's no recession, i.e. everyone is a billionaire.

  27. A major premise to this blog is that you won't land a legal job unless you are "well connected." Well, duh! The idea as a lawyer is to go out and make the connections!!! That's what lawyers are supposed to do! Its no secret that connections are what get you jobs - not 3,000 resumes.

    Also, if you can't figure out how to make at least $40k a year as a second or third year lawyer, then you don't belong working as a lawyer. Any bumbling idiot with a piece of paper that says "Bar License of the State of [State]" can get court appointments as a solo which brings in 40k a year. Now try a little harder than that and make $50k.....problem solved!!!!!!!

    Seriously, if its a problem for you to make $40k as a lawyer... then its not in the best interest of the general public to having you try to figure out their problems.

  28. Again, a lawyer, you are not an "employee." No high level professional is ever an employee: Not doctors, not dentists, not optomologists, not psychologists, and that goes for lawyers too.

    As a high level professional, you are your own "miniature business" and you grow your own business book, whether big firm or solo.

    Recent law grads are mistaken if they consider themselves "employees." That's how McDonald's think of themselves.

    Your livelihood doesn't depend on you getting "employed." It depends on how well you can sell yourself. Some people do it well. Others, well...they start blogs and complain about it.

  29. Besides,

  30. It doesn't matter what you consider yourself: non-partner lawyers are employees. Go back to the Ayn Rand. Let me guess, you consider yourself to be in the top 1% too? Hate unemployed people?

    Fuck off.

  31. Again, a lawyer, you are not an "employee."

    Tyson, how exactly do the multitude of lawyers who are clearly "employees" (such as prosecutors, or any lawyer who earns a salary working for a corporation or other entity) fit into your little worldview?

    Again, people, Tyson is a jackass!!

  32. 5:08pm: Apparently you know everything! Everything except the fact that many, many prosecutors actually have their own separate law practices in addition to their prosecutorial duties! Same with corporate attorneys too! Basically, as a lawyer, you work as much as, or in your case, as little as, you are able. This is very common and there is nothing by law or otherwise (except by maybe some oddball contract) stopping you.

    THAT'S how it fits into my little worldview, [Good time to call you "Jackass" right now, but I refuse.]


    "Last month, the legal industry gained 300 jobs, as reported by AmLawDaily based on numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Compare that to the 1,100 jobs lost in April, and one can understand the WSJ Law Blog’s spin on the story (Happy Days Here Again? Legal Sector, Yes, Adds Jobs in May).

    Nevertheless, there’s still good reason for skepticism or at least cautious optimism. The legal market won 300 jobs in May, yes; but it has lost 400 jobs since March. And in the last year, AmLaw reports, 22,200 legal jobs have vanished. That said, of course, it’s a relief to see some gains at last, and we can only hope that the trend continues."

    You are going to be an excellent lawyer, won't you Tyson? And I thought your typical American high school student had bad research and reading comprehension skills. The very article you cite as evidence to back up your argument, CLEARLY states that there is still GOOD REASON FOR SKEPTICISM.

    And, you may not want to trust everything published by the U.S. government - including Department of Labor statistics. In fact, many economists note that if the BLS were to use the 1980s definition of unemployment, the actual unemployment rate would be closer to 16- 20 percent. Also, here are some important questions to ask: How many of those jobs are paid? How many of those positions are full-time? What percentage requires bar passage? How many of those 300 jobs are permanent positions - as opposed to temporary?

    Tyson, you believe that lawyers are not employees?! Where does that put the MAJORITY of lawyers who do not own their firms? Those people are working for a paycheck, are they not? Also, where did you read that “many, many prosecutors actually have their own separate law practices in addition to their prosecutorial duties”?! That may be the case in small counties where ADAs are working part-time. However, in metropolitan areas, where ADAs are working their ass to the bone for the state, they simply do not have the time or energy to represent private clients. (What would they be doing on the side, Tyson – representing criminal defendants that they and their colleagues are prosecuting?)

    Also, 300 jobs added in May minus 1,100 lost jobs from the month before equals a net loss of 800 legal jobs over the course of two months. Got that?! Also, NALP Executive Shill James Leipold – in a piece published on May 25, 2010 - stated that things will get worse. Maybe, you should read the NALP study before commenting on this issue. It amazes me how often people fail to do the research but still offer their opinions.

    Furthermore, the legal job market – as well as the U.S. economy as a whole – is in the midst of a fundamental restructuring. When the market does improve, what makes you think American law firms will suddenly go on a hiring binge? Do American businesses have a lengthy history of benevolence, on which you base your belief? Such law firms will note that they made it through the rough patch with a skeleton crew of attorneys. When the economy does improve, these firms will look to make up lost ground – and many will choose to continue with a slimmer staff so as to increase profits per partner. THAT is the end game. That is how the business world works, kid. A rising tide DOES NOT life all boats – I don’t care what your parents or public school teachers taught you.

  34. @Nando from 6:50pm = "That may be the case in small counties where ADAs are working part-time. However, in metropolitan areas, where ADAs are working their ass to the bone for the state, they simply do not have the time or energy to represent private clients. (What would they be doing on the side, Tyson – representing criminal defendants that they and their colleagues are prosecuting?)"

    Wrong again, Bucko. Take this one single example that took me about 60 seconds to find on the internet. See

    High profile prosecutor? Metro area? Practicing part time in civil law to avoid conflicts of interest? LEGAL AND NOT UNUSUAL IN OHIO???? But, I'll give it to you, Nando - you made a great attempt.

  35. Female law grad in her 30s living with her parents, working in retail, child care, cannot find legal job in past two years and owes over $90K in student loan debt.


    "CINCINNATI, Ohio -- A high-profile county prosecutor in Cincinnati is taking a part-time job with a private law firm to help offset budget cuts in his office. The move by Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters is legal and not unusual in Ohio, but it can create problems. John Murphy, executive director of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, says conflict of interest issues come up fairly frequently when a prosecutor also has a private practice. Deters can practice only civil law in his outside job, since his public office prosecutes criminal cases. Attorney Stan Chesley, whose law firm hired Deters, says he won't have Deters do any work that might raise questions about a conflict."

    Tyson, do you ever bother to read the text of the links you post? The article mentions that this arrangement is not unusual; this does NOT mean that "this is usual." Also, did you see where the piece starts with the following:


    Did you read that part? What does that tell you, Tyson? How does that register in your brain?! Did that somehow lead you to believe that the legal job market is so strong that a HIGH-PROFILE PROSECUTOR must resort to taking on part-time civil work in the private sector?

    Yes, Tyson, that must be it! The lawyer job market is SO STRONG that a seasoned, skilled prosecutor must take a part-time job with a private firm!! YOU should go to law school. In your particular case, it may be worth taking on an additional $130K in non-dischargeable debt for you to learn some basic logic and reading comprehension skills. You claim to be a 3L, but your reading comprehension skills indicate a high school education, at best.

    Doug, it appears that you have lost total contact with reality. As a retired cop, I am sure you will have access to a good therapist. Take advantage of that perk. Or in the alternative, go play some more video games. Your insipid garbage is not welcome here. Perhaps you cannot read - or take a hint - very well. By the way, are you actually this dense, or is this an act?

  37. "Apparently you know everything!"

    No, I don't claim to know everything. However, I do know that your "lawyers aren't employees" claim is preposterous. There is more than one way to be a lawyer (even a very successful one) other than by following the model you propose. I know quite a few lawyers making a decent living collecting a paycheck from a firm or government agency, and are satisfied doing so. So sorry, but they are "employee" lawyers, one and all.

    "Take this one single example that took me about 60 seconds to find on the internet."

    So what? One example of a prosecutor doing additional work on the side certainly does not prove that all prosecutors handle private cases on the side. No doubt some do, but I never argued otherwise. I can't think of a single prosecutor I know who does, though.

    Furthermore, a prosecutor is by definition an "employee" of the government while working in that capacity. So, I'd say you have failed to back up your claim that "lawyers aren't employees." I think you mean to say "lawyers don't necessarily have to be employees," since your main argument seems to be that people tend to overemphasize salaried employment at the expense of overlooking entrepreneurial opportunities.

    "Basically, as a lawyer, you work as much as, or in your case, as little as, you are able."

    Tyson, could you please expand on this? I'd like to see how much you know about my work schedule.

  38. Do people here really believe 'Doug' was a 'cop' and that he retired by age 29?

    I would find it very disconcerting if it were true. He seems a little bit off.

  39. Hi, my name is Doug. I am headed to 67th ranked Univ. of Pittsburgh Law School in Fall 2011. I can't wait to begin my law school journey and let all of you know how great of a time I am having in my intellectual pursuit. I have no friends, which is why I need to visit these blogs so often. It's the least I can do. You see my incredibly low sperm count precludes me from impregnating my wife. (Although she did give birth to a mulatto baby 2 years ago that we are raising.)

  40. You whiners and complainers should MOVE TO FRANCE. Any student and scholar of the FREE MARKET will confirm that the BEST people are ALWAYS employed! The scum floats to the top and is skimmed off and made to be unemployed!

    The FREE MARKET and its amazing efficience is humanity's greatest achievement!

  41. Damn, this has to be one of the most pathetic bunch I've come across while scanning the scam-blogs!

    You guys are blind! Even when people try to help you out you are so angry at yourselves you just fly off with nonsense and insults.

    I graduated the same year as you Nando, and from a school no better than yours. It took some time, but I found work. Not everyone will give up like the handful of you complainers, but hey, the more of you that do I guess the better for those who are actually willing to build their careers.

    The Law Stud

  42. I remember about this time last year there was a very similar sounding story to "Doug" but it was a retired firefighter not a cop...almost everything else was the same. I'll bet it is the same person, but I wonder what their game is.

  43. No matter...either way it isn't doing our cause any good by being so bitter and catty with people who basically point out the same failings of the system. That's just dumb.

  44. anyone notice how the apologists never attack the numbers, figures, charts and analysis? And these idiots are somehow going to excel at their TTTs and land a nice-paying lawyer job? Okay. That will be nice.

  45. tyson how old are you? I remember hearing all the same crap back in 10th grade with everyone claiming they'd get a 1600 on the SATs and it was soooo easy. Then after graduation it turns out a good chunk of those people wound up in state university, barely cracked 1300 if that, and a bunch of them even flamed out of state school.

    Then in college, I remember everyone talking about how they'd be working a great job and $50k is a "low amount" of money and they'd never settle for that. Then you see these same guys working temp jobs for $12/hr and whining about that (I bet most of these temp jobs aren't even around anymore or are even cheaper).

    Point is everyone always thinks something is easy until they have to actually do it themselves. Then they either pretend they're successful or whine or go back to school to hide from the real world some more.

    I'd bet anything that tyson is either a law school lemming/admin or is a failure that is trying to prop himself up on the internet.

  46. We need more law schools!

  47. law stud, how's bagging groceries?

  48. Look what I came across.

    “Though official statistics will not be released until next May, the class of 2010 is likely to have lower raw employment numbers than the class before it, says Jim Leipold, executive director of the National Association for Law Placement. The employment for the class of 2011 will likely also be "very compromised," he says.

    "The Class of 2012 will be the first class for which we might see some kind of uptick in employment," Leipold says. "I'm not making a prediction that it will recover in 2012; I'm saying it probably won't recover much before then."

    Yes, “very compromised” – that is the term for it, right? You see, James Leipold, as Executive Shill at NALP, must engage in fluent corporate double-speak – at all times. The industry does not have the luxury of telling the truth. They must shade it, so as to trick as many lemmings as possible.

    The article continues:

    “A recent NALP study found the class of 2009 had an 88.3 percent employment rate, an elevated statistic due in part to temporary jobs and school job programs that offer grants and other stipends for work.. The classes of 2010 and 2011 may see a lower rate because firms look to hire years in advance, Leipold says.

    Law students interview for large law firm summer programs in August just before their second year of school. This is a make-or-break time, Leipold says, because scoring a summer position is often still a fast-track to a job after graduation Law school graduates without previous ties to a firm face an even tougher employment market, as only 3 percent of firms in 2009 reported recruiting third-year students who had not been summer associates, down from 25 percent in 2008, according to the NALP report.

    The 2010 and 2011 classes faced a narrowing window for summer opportunities, as law firms drastically scaled back or cut their programs entirely. This summer, close to 25 percent of firms have canceled their programs, Leipold says.”

    Well, the head of the NALP is ONCE AGAIN ADMITTING that the law school classes of 2010 and 2011 will have it worse than the Class of 2009. And we all know how well that class did. The mealy-mouthed James Leipold also noted that the industry expects “SOME KIND OF UPTICK” for the Class of 2012. Yes, that is a SURE sign of the industry making a comeback, isn’t it?!?

    Oh, well - this will not dissuade too many lemmings from making the plunge. After all, THEY will succeed where law review students and T14 grads failed.


    “The national economy is still volatile and the legal economy remains anemic,” James Leipold, executive director of the Association for Legal Career Professionals, said in an e-mail.”

    Wow. And people still want to apply to law school in this country! Pure pig-headed foolishness.

  50. Nando,

    1. WHO CARES how many law schools keep opening up? Each one that opens up starts and stays at the rock bottom of the ranking system anyway! Employers know how prospective lawyers stack up and they know what law schools usually produce the smartest lawyers. Also, if you attend a tier four school...there shouldn't be any surprise that "employment" will be tougher to get. That's no scam on the school's behalf - it is pretty well known that a lawyer with less intelligence is also less desirable.

    2. Also, again, a lawyer is hardly an "employee." While sometimes lawyers may technically fall under that definition in some capacities, they are not any different than doctors, ophthalmologists, dentists, chiropractors, psychologists, or active business professionals as far as their ability to engage in multiple arenas. Yes, I know, they often technically fit the definition of "employee," but the bottom line is that these types of professionals can, and often do, accept multiple jobs or projects ....not because they HAVE to...but because they CHOOSE to.

    Also, when you respond, try to do it with substance AND without going off on some odd tangent that misses my points. Because when you miss points, it leads one to believe you have no basis for a counter.

  51. Like when he correctly pointed out that the OH prosecutor working PT for a pvt firm shows that the market is weak> Others also pointed out that few ADAs take on pvt clients.

    Or when you earlier stated, 'we need more law schools!' like an idiot. HOw do you counter such blatant stupidity and wilfull ignorance? I mean, you don't even know what an 'employee' is. Have you ever held a job before?

  52. 3:57pm: You almost made sense. Congratulations?

  53. 3:57pm: Even if you did make sense, I wasn't making a point about the job market. I was making a point about the independence of professionals relative to that of a traditional "employee," at say, WalMart. You seem to be (intentionally?) missing my substantive point by arguing upon a technical aspect.

    Perhaps you do this intentionally to string out the argument, so that other readers lose the original argument in the midst of all of the words?

  54. If a school intentionally misrepresents employment data, then the school is committing a scam, a con, a fraud on the applicant who has no reason to doubt these figures on their face, then the schools are running scams.

  55. The attorneys I personally know are, by and large, employees. One works for the UAW Legal Services Plan; another for the City of Detroit Law Department;another is employed by a local title company. Sure, one might go out on one's own as a non-employee, but likely, not very successfully until after working under someone and learning how to be a lawyer first, which law school sure as hell is not going to do for you.

  56. And please, please, refrain from drawing silly parallels about law being just like other (read: real} professions, like medicine and dentistry, for the latter actually VALUE their trainees, with medicine closely guarding the gates of entry to fit what the market will bear, and dentistry refusing to let some silly-assed magazine determine their students' relative worth.

    No real profession tolerates that kind of crap.

  57. "The attorneys I personally know are, by and large, employees. One works for the UAW Legal Services Plan; another for the City of Detroit Law Department;another is employed by a local title company."

    Ah, but see, they're only "employees" in the TECHNICAL sense. Because, don't you know, they are in those positions voluntarily, and COULD be doing something else, so they're not REALLY employees. That's a crucial distinction between lawyers and, say, Walmart employees (who have no choice regarding their employment and NEVER work more than one job).

  58. "You seem to be (intentionally?) missing my substantive point by arguing upon a technical aspect."

    Well, no, the problem is, YOU don't have a substantive point. And, YOU are the one "arguing upon a technical aspect" by insisting that lawyers clearly falling within the widely-accepted definition of "employees" are somehow NOT "employees."

  59. @ 8:02pm : Yeah, fine. In that case,I guess doctors, chiropractors, psychologists, accountants, hedge fund managers, and economists are also "employees" too. Geez, what was I thinking in the first place.

    (And if you claim that the legal profession isn't a *real* profession...well, I invite you to make that assertion...because that would bring us to the next question of how fringed-out you really are.)

  60. Tyson is a lost cause. Must have eaten paint chips as a kid or something.

  61. "Yeah, fine. In that case, I guess doctors, chiropractors, psychologists, accountants, hedge fund managers, and economists are also 'employees' too."

    Of course, if they work for an employer. If they don't work for an employer, then they aren't an employee. Why was it so difficult to get you to admit such a non-controversial point?

  62. @8:48am: I was being slightly sarcastic with my 6:21pm comments. My point was that you can technically call a lot of workers "employees," but obviously not all employees are created equal. Compare hedge-fund managers with Wal-mart workers. My argument was that lawyers, doctors, and grad-level professionals are MORE than just employees...they are entrepreneurs too!

    Another MAJOR point here is this: There really isn't much to lose! If law school doesn't work out, then one always has his/her previous profession to revert to. If someone didn't really have any serious profession to begin with, then they haven't really lost anything. Only upside.

    The debt is the only obvious downside. But that goes for every school in this entire country! It's no secret that tuition is outrageous. Every already knows, or should know, that the debt is non-dischargeable.

    ... And another thing! If school were "free," actually or figuratively, do you think that would result in any LESS lawyers? NO! Out of everyone, I'd think Nando would be glad that high tuition has the effect of repelling competition.

  63. A little outdated maybe, but not by much (2005). Here is the truth everyone:

  64. Tyson,

    If you can, please explain your motivation / purpose in commenting on this blog. Your arguments seem to be jumping all over the place. I cannot make sense of your contentious platitudes while you seemingly agree with the blog's purpose to warn.

  65. "My argument was that lawyers, doctors, and grad-level professionals are MORE than just employees...they are entrepreneurs too!"

    Right, I keep hearing you say things like this, but it isn't always true. Sure a lawyer can decide to be an entrepreneur. But a lawyer can also seek out salaried employment, to the complete exclusion of solo practice. So, a lawyer is NOT necessarily an entrepreneur. In fact, lots of people aren't interested in being an entrepreneur. They'd rather put in their 40-50 hours a week, and collect a paycheck and benefits. Running a business is not for everyone.

    "...obviously not all employees are created equal."

    Sure, some jobs pay more, some emphasize intellect over physical skill, some offer more social standing, some offer more potential for upward mobility. If you are trying to make these points regarding the legal profession, why not simply say that instead of trying to make the convoluted argument that lawyers are by definition entrepreneurs?

    "The debt is the only obvious downside."

    And the loss of income one could have been earning if working instead of going to school. And the massive investment of time spent getting the degree, passing the bar exam, and making the attempt to get a career off the ground. And, while all that is going on, there is the danger of earlier skill sets deteriorating, along with one's previous career. Depending where one is coming from, it might not be that easy to transition back into an old career, and even if you can, your income will be reduced by whatever monthly payments one has to make on those law school loans.

    Tyson, I'm sorry, but I really think you are understating the magnitude of the risk of going to law school. If things don't work out, a person can really damage themselves personally and financially. So, I cannot agree with your contention that law school is a no-downside proposition, nor do I agree that more law schools are needed.

    What I do think is needed is for the public to seriously re-evaluate its perception of the legal profession, and the value of pursuing a law degree.

  66. 90 days free to try and study!
    120us to start an enterprise! Grow up automation system
    You could be making $2,000 to $5,000 of extra income every month!

  67. 90 days free to try and study!
    120us to start an enterprise! Grow up automation system
    You could be making $2,000 to $5,000 of extra income every month!


Web Analytics