Friday, May 20, 2016

Big Surprise: Smaller JD Class Sizes Have Not Magically Led to More Attorney Openings for Graduates

Dismal Job Prospects Remain: On May 16, 2016, the American Lawyer published a Matt Leichter article entitled “As Supply of Law Grads Drops, More Struggle to Find Work.” Check out the following portion:

“What would it take to spark an employment recovery for law school graduates?

In simple economic terms, there are just two factors at play: the demand for new lawyers and the supply of graduates. The U.S. economy is still lagging, and the legal sector hasn't improved either, so it's understandable if law grads aren't finding more and better jobs amid slack demand. 

That leaves the supply side. If the number of graduates falls, then those remaining should have an easier time finding jobs, leaving fewer graduates unemployed. And even if poor demand for new attorneys limits the positions available to graduates, those who don't find work as lawyers should be able to find it elsewhere. Like musical chairs, the fewer people who play, the fewer are left standing when the music stops. This is the glass-half-full prediction for law school graduates. 

Unfortunately for graduates, the employment results for the class of 2015, which the American Bar Association officially released in May, tell a different story. 

Excluding the three law schools in Puerto Rico, 3,772 fewer people graduated from ABA-accredited law schools in 2015, an 8.7 percent decline from 2014. Somewhat surprisingly, the number of graduates with jobs requiring a law degree fell by nearly 2,000, equivalent to more than half the difference in graduates between the two years. To some extent, this is due to lower bar exam passage rates. Another category that used to employ more graduates was law-school-funded jobs. Changes in the ABA's definition of that category helped it fall by a third. 

The number of graduates who were unemployed and not seeking work, looking for work or couldn't be found dropped by nearly 500, which is about 13.1 percent of this year's decline in graduates. Even so, 12.7 percent of graduates in both classes fall into these categories. Full-time, long-term jobs dominated the kinds of positions that vanished this year, in contrast to less consistent work.” [Emphasis mine]

Still want to take the plunge, waterhead?!?! Leichter does excellent work, and his research truly is top-notch. However, he should qualify the first factor as “demand for new lawyers by those who can pay for legal services.” After all, there are legions of broke-asses and deadbeats in this country who could use an attorney. However, representing ignorant, poor white trash is not going to put food in your fridge – or a roof over your head.

Flush Twice and Open a Window: On May 18, 2016, Staci Zaretsky posted an ATL entry that was labeled “The 20 Law Schools With The Most Unemployed Graduates.” Check out this opening:

“In the past, the American Bar Association released law school employment statistics nine months after graduation. It was like a birth story of sorts — recent graduates had nine months to carry their fledgling careers to full term, and after their diligent laboring in search of employment, they’d have beautiful entry-level jobs.

After the recession hit, that was no longer the case. Career prospects were being aborted left and right. Entry-level employment for recent graduates were few and far between, and law school administrators blamed the ABA for not giving their alumni enough time to find a job. The ABA eventually caved to law school deans’ demands, and began compiling law school employment statistics 10 months after graduation. 

Has this solved the unemployment problem for recent law school graduates?

Thanks to smaller law school class sizes, it looks like things have improved, when in reality, they have not. Ten months after the class of 2015 graduated, 59.3 percent had long-term, full-time jobs that required bar passage, compared with 57.9 percent for the class of 2014. The job market has not improved much, if at all — the only thing that improved was the fact that there was a nine percent drop in the number of new law school graduates flooding the market in search of employment. 

The National Law Journal produced several helpful charts based on law school employment data for the class of 2015. Today, we will highlight the most alarming chart of all, the 20 law schools with the highest percentage of unemployed graduates. Here are the the top 10 law schools on that chart for your sadistic viewing pleasure: 

1. Southwestern Law: 30.55 percent unemployed 
2. Florida Coastal Law: 28.36 percent unemployed 
3. Santa Clara Law: 28.31 percent unemployed 
4. Liberty U. Law: 26.23 percent unemployed 
5. Thomas Jefferson Law: 26.14 percent unemployed 
6. San Francisco Law: 24.70 percent unemployed 
7. Cooley Law: 23.55 percent unemployed 
8. Pacific McGeorge Law: 22.81 percent unemployed 
9. St. Thomas U. Law: 22.42 percent unemployed 
10. Charlotte Law: 22.37 percent unemployed

That was depressing.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, that was incredibly uplifting, huh?!?! Two-ply toilet paper has greater value than a degree from any of these cesspits.

Conclusion: The U.S. lawyer job market is oversaturated, i.e. GLUTTED. Anyone who states otherwise falls into one or more of the following categories: (a) pathological liar; (b) willfully ignorant; (c) employee or mouthpiece of the commodes; or (d) mentally deficient. For $ome rea$on, the mass retirement of Baby Boomer scum has yet to occur – despite the assertions by ass-hat “law professors” and deans. Then again, the pieces of trash were simply mouthing the words – with no basis in fact – for the sole purpose of getting a few more cretins to enroll in their respective ABA-accredited toilet.


  1. Team AAMPLE:

    Agreed. Smaller classes, lead to more intimate learning environments. Good thing that no HBCU's were listed among the top 10 law schools with the highest percentage of unemployed graduates.

    You must network, and then hustle harder than the peers around you. Only then will you have clarity on your next step in order to monetize your JD.

    Just remember being a future "minister of justice" is never easy. But when you look back in your 50's and reflect on how many lives you have impacted. It will be all worth it.

    Like Eugene Young said " Someone must stand up for the rights of other's, or the system will trample over everyone"

    criminal law is the way to go, and do it for the people, not the money!

    See you in court!

    1. In your case, perhaps a tennis court, as it's clear you aren't a lawyer. Of all the over-saturated with lawyers areas of law, criminal has to be #1.

      It appears that you are of limited education-or none-as you continually quote FICTIONAL characters from TV shows cancelled over a decade ago. you work for a greeting card company, what with the "hustle" "minister of justice" "network" nonsense? In any case, turn off the TV, get off the couch, get out of your parents' basement, and actually learn something. Please re-read Nando's post-the point is pretty simple: law is GLUTTED. You clearly cannot comprehend this.
      But glad to see that you got the HBCU thing right...finally.

      But the malign intent of your posts shines through: You call yourself "Team AAMPLE" and then launch into drivel about HBCU law schools-and you know that the two have nothing to do with each other. NO-as in ZERO-HBCUs are part of AAMPLE, which is a program run by three for-profit law schools which each charge over $40,000/year for tuition alone. You're nothing but a salesman for AAMPLE, and will spout any pap to close the deal. And note that two of the three AAMPLE schools are on the list above. Great investment for those AAMPLE students, I'm sure you'd agree.
      But tell us-have you started co-signing loans for AAMPLE students? After all, a savant like yourself will want to help these would be "ministers of justice" have the "clarity" in order to "monetize" their JDs.
      I can't believe that anyone with any knowledge of the legal profession in its current state would write that sentence. Again, what type of law do you practice?

    2. May 20, 2016 at 6:44 AM:

      Define "hustle" in terms of a newly-un-or-under-employed law grad not being mentored by an experienced practitioner in the art of rendering competent legal services to real clients. How does one "hustle" when they don't know what the hell they are doing? Let's have the play-by-play, how do you define that?

      I am a recovering sh!tlawyer and can tell in an instant you have no law practice experience whatsoever and have no idea what you are talking about, reinforcing the fact you have no business giving advice to naive children contemplating this sordid "profession". There are successes. There are success stories. And most of those would have done as well, likely better, not having gone to law school at all!

    3. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingMay 22, 2016 at 10:19 AM

      More likely to seem him before the Bar Ethics committee. You can't "hustle" more than your peers, meaning us. Most of us adhere to the Model Rules and standards of decency, even if it means forgoing a newer car or better vacation. I have seen newbies like you get jammed up taking on major federal civil matters and finding out you in over your head and then completely neglecting it.

  2. Ah, but those unemployed people will reap boundless riches from their Million-Dollar Degree™.

    Note that the unemployment rates for scores of law schools exceed the unemployment rate for the general population.

    1. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingMay 20, 2016 at 4:16 PM

      These number only reflect new graduates. I am out 26 years from a T-1 School and severely underemployed. My buddy is desperate for a law job and out over 30 years. We are not counted. I have another attorney buddy who sits at an In-N-Out Burger and is ashamed to go home "early." We are not whiners. Facts are facts.

  3. Santa Clara is actually building a brand new Law School Building, if you can believe that.

    1. Is it going to be an (un)employment law center?

  4. Fantastic post, Nando.

  5. Even big firms lack enough work.

    1. This article ought to tell prospective law students that the placement practices of top law schools are unsustainable, at least for the law graduates. If 7,000 first years are being placed into big law firms that are already at overcapacity and doing stealth layoffs, you have a pot boiling over. That is not a bright future for the young lawyers being placed into big law.

      Retirements have not solved the overcapacity problem in big law. In many cases, the baby boomers were thrown out years before retirement age. Much of the overcapacity is people in their 30s, 40s and a little older. Just look at the ages of the partners in a practice group to see the potential retirements in the near term, and if there are any.

      The law schools should be required to account for where their graduates are 15 or 20 or 25 years out and what their graduates are earning. Methinks it is going to be an ugly picture, much uglier than the first year stats, for the T14, up to the top of the T14.

  6. The legal job market is really not good. There were fewer legal jobs in 2015 than in 2014 for new law graduates. There were also fewer jobs in large law firms, which are the only jobs that have pay sufficient to pay off most people's law school debts or costs.

    It does not end there. Even going into big law means a lifetime of underemployment and unemployment for many people. That is because big law retains very few of its hires, and the post big law job market is not good.
    There are many more job seekers than jobs post-big law. Many former bigly lawyers will end up earning half the starting salary at big law, or as little as $40,000 a year after big law due to the overcapacity in the legal profession.

    The legal job market is not good. The legal job market is oversaturated. I see law students from lower tier schools and think what could they possibly be thinking getting themselves into the legal profession? Maybe that goes hand in hand with a lower tier school- not realizing one is ruining one's life.

    The legal profession does not get better with more experience. It gets worse. There are fewer jobs per law school class, the farther one gets from law school.

    The legal job market is not good. It is not improving. What could you possibly be thinking, even going to a T14 law school? You probably will spend a lifetime of unpaid time in a futile job search, where you get a job and you lose that job. That is because the legal job market is not good.

  7. Going to top undergrad and law schools and working like a dog one's whole life does not assure a lawyer a full-time, permanent job or a decent income today.

    I graduated from a T4 undergrad (e.g., Princeton) with honors, and a T4 law school, and am earning not much more than the median annual income in the U.S. ($55,000) after paying 80% of family health insurance. I am facing an income cut to $40,000, and I live and work in a very high cost area. I have been applying to every open legal job in my practice area and geographic area for a while, and not even getting interviews. I am also trying to pick up additional legal work, and there is no place to get it from. Writing, speaking, going to networking events, keeping up with complex new laws to keep my skills fresh- all are hard work for which I am working for free, with an uncertain return from that work.

    There are a few good jobs that open each year in my practice area, and competition is stiff. It helps being in your 30s and fresh out of big law. Anyone not in that category because they are older or less recent alums of big law is not competitive, no matter how good the record.

    Most of the recently made partners in my former big law firm in my practice area have been shown the door. It is not that the firm is doing badly; it is that there is not enough demand for lawyers to comfortably grow. I have colleagues in other big law firms who have been shown the door- these are T14 grads, white males who worked like dogs, never took a break from backbreaking work.

    The landing places of these former partners are mixed, including outright unemployment, a tiny law firm with who knows what type of income, in one case an established small law firm with a prayer of a good life, but modest income, hanging on as a contract partner in a different large but smaller law firm than the first, waiting for the axe to drop a second time, and hanging on in an embarrassing short-term position at the partner's existing law firm where the partner is to the outside world halfway out the door.

    Among the white male kings of the legal profession, some in my practice area have thrived. Many have not. The law school the lawyer went to makes no difference in survival several years down the road. Only a limited number of lawyers who are not white male make a decent living in the practice area long term.

    Unemployment and underemployment hits hardest on older white women. There are few minority lawyers in the practice area, and the few that are working in good jobs are quite young.

    It is not that there are no good jobs in my practice area and geographic area. There are many fewer good jobs in the area than there are really good, experienced, highly credentialed lawyers. If you don't get and keep a good job after big law, you end up like I am about to end up, taking home $40,000 a year, with no retirement benefits. A starting public school teacher in my area with no teaching credential earns more than I do, and works fewer hours. I pay the health insurance after tax, another money loser that further drops my income.

    Unless you get one of those few good legal jobs after big law, and keep that good job until you are ready to retire, you are facing a law degree and a college degree with no value, even a Harvard, Yale, Princeton or Stanford college degree with honors and a very top law degree. Your degrees and experience may have no value a few years after big law because the supply of lawyers created by big law far exceeds the demand for these lawyers.

    Altman Weil completed a recent study stating that big law is still overstaffed by 10% or more and needs to do lawyer layoffs to remain highly profitable. They are recommending a GE model of firing the lawyers who are the lowest 25% of performers each year. There may really be no place to go a few years after big law.

    Who needs this? Why not go into a line of work where the supply and demand are balanced in favor of the worker?

    1. Not to be a raging dick, but I work in a factory and I make more than you do. I also have health, dental, vision, a 401k with 5% match, paid vacation, and I get paid overtime when I work more than 40 hours in a week. Have you thought about just giving it up?

  8. To all my colleagues like at 6:01, the only thing I can say is solo or small firm where you are working for yourself is really your only option of the Good life. I graduated mid 80s, worked as a prosecutor for a short while, then worked Mid-Law for half a decade . . .went with a small Plaintiff's firm and then out on my own. I recognized long ago there was no future in law except for the future you made for yourself. If you can sell yourself, if you can try a case, if you are aggressive and smart enough to recognize and argue distinctions in the law . . you can still make good money. There is still lots of money to be made in contingency fee cases or in insurance disputes, at least in Florida. If you have large student loans, you should be on IBR if at all possible to limit you repayments. One good case . . and they are out there . . and your life can be changed. And if your personality wins you a good case, you can always bring in another more experienced attorney to assist. I am not saying that everybody is cut out for small law, or that everybody will make it. . . but the vast majority of lawyers out there work for themselves eventually or go solo. Most of them, from what I can see, are making it more or less. Parenthetically, I looked up my old mid law firm not long ago. The senior managing partner apparently fled the firm and is now a partner with another firm. That old firm no longer exists. Wonder what happened to all of the partners in that firm . . where they are now . . but I'm pretty sure they are doing okay.

    1. ... And this is why, kids, you should NEVER listen to the Boomers.

      Your post is utterly ridiculous, sorry to say.

      You are advocating that, with tuition today, some 20-something rack up about $300,000 in non-dischargeable student loan debt for a chance to.. eventually go solo?!?

      Utterly clueless. Utterly insane.

      How could 6:01's - That Magnificent Bastard - get everything so clearly right, so logically and pragmatically laid out - be followed by a post so utterly wrong as yours?

      Here is a person who Did Everything Right and is putting up giant waving, flashing red warning signs as a caution to would-be law students and lawyers - and then some dunce like you comes along with the Solo Gambit nonsense..

      Sure friend.. EVERYONE is looking for that next Big Loser - that Magical O.J. Simpson - to come walking through their door so they can have their 15 minutes of fame and maybe some lucrative book deals..

      EVERY solo is scrambling for that one Magical Unicorn. How many do you realistically think will land it?

      You can go your whole entire career and never find the one you need. Meanwhile, solo practice will bleed you dry today.. Tricia Dennis has said she spends 500,000 on advertising in a medium-competitive market just to stay afloat. This is just ADVERTISING alone, nothing ELSE.

      You Sir are a Gambler, nothing more. 1% get lucky. The rest find holes in the desert..

      I posit that you are always at a disadvantage in law. There's always someone who's more experienced, has more cash reserves, is a better salesman, and so on and with the complete oversaturation of the legal market, the combined competition will kill you. And the market itself is not static. It is shrinking all the time and has been for years while the supply, thanks to the law schools, is ever-expanding.

      People like to gamble. But I doubt they like to lose. Everything in America is a gambling-based mentality and advocating a solo lifestyle today is the height of this insanity. Undercapitalization alone will kill most easily.

      Why RISK all of this on law?

      What else is there?

      Answer: ANYTHING ELSE.

      Anything that doesn't involve 4 years of college, 3 years of law school, and countless years of indentured servitude all for a 1 in 1,000,000 shot at hitting the Legal Lottery.

    2. Sorry if I misled you. I am NOT advocating people go in to law now or incur debt to do so. I am speaking to those who have already made that mistake and suggesting ways to make the best of a bad situation. Like I said, the only hope is to work for yourself . . that's it. But if you are not a lawyer . . . stay the fuk away. And if you are . . reach some deal with a small firm for free office space and they get a share of your revenues. There are all kinds of ways to try to make it.

  9. Wow, 6.01 a.m. That is a powerful post. And very sobering. I hope everyone who is considering law school reads it and takes it to heart.

  10. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingMay 22, 2016 at 3:08 PM


    Check out the Taz Prof Law Blog. There is a symposium on teaching "Remedial Problem Solving Skills to Underperforming students." They are desperate to take anybody.


    On May 20, 2016, Staci Zaretsky posted an ATL piece labeled “Biglaw Firms Must Conduct More Layoffs, Before It’s Too Late.” Take a look at this opening:

    For years now, law firm leaders have not been laying off enough lawyers to protect their profitability. This is the startling conclusion that’s been drawn from arecent report released by Altman Weil, a law firm consultancy.

    Altman Weil surveyed 356 law firms — including 49 percent of the largest 350 firms in the country, and 48 percent of the Am Law 200 — and according to the report, 59.5 percent of leaders from those large firms said overcapacity was hurting their bottom line. As the report notes, the larger the firm, the larger the problem, with 75.6 percent of leaders from law firms of 250 lawyers or more citing that an overabundance of lawyers was diluting their profits. This information, coupled with the fact that 62 percent of law firm leaders said that demand for legal services has not yet rebounded from pre-recession levels, could be a recipe for disaster.

    Just because Biglaw firms haven’t been laying off attorneys en masse, like the Great Lathaming of 2009, that doesn’t mean that they’ve stopped stealthily conducting layoffs. As we know from our wealth of tipsters, some firms have been conducting stealth layoffs for years. About 96 percent of law firm leaders reported that their firms had employed under-performing lawyers, and approximately 73 percent said that the way they’ve been dealing with those chronic under-performers is by removing them from the firm.

    Which lawyers have been the primary targets of these cuts? It seems that Biglaw firms have a nonequity partner problem. Here’s more information from the Am Law Daily:

    The overcapacity issue appears to be most acute among nonequity partners, the Atlman Weil report found. “Nonequity partners present the most obvious target for law firm rightsizing, as that class has been allowed to grow larger than current economics and likely future demand can justify,” the authors wrote.

    Only 19.8 percent of survey respondents from large firms said that their nonequity partners were “sufficiently busy.” By comparison, 78.9 percent of large firm leaders surveyed said that their associates were sufficiently busy.

    “The role and value of nonequity partners is in flux,” one anonymous firm leader said in the survey. “They fill needs now, but their value in the future is uncertain.”

    Then again, it’s not as though TTT grads will be affected directly. However, the fact that Biglaw is GLUTTED means that graduates of real law schools may end up taking up positions in toiletlaw firms, legal aid, and other dreck.

  12. 6:01 what a terrific post! Every T-25 College and University grad still contemplating law school should read your powerful argument on why even really bright kids should avoid getting sucked into even the elite law schools, let alone T-1 traps and 2nd tier regional schools.

    Virtually all of the grads of my second tier toilet, 25 years out of law school, are not practicing attorneys. Some are involved in real estate development, teaching high school, or working at paltry salaries for bank trust departments. This includes capable undergrad students from UPenn and Princeton who graduated top 10%. The really sad fact is that these jobs do not require a law degree; a good undergrad degree in econ or accounting plus some common sense will do the trick. Forgo the law school scam and forget the debt and opportunity cost of the three wasted years.

    Interestingly, a high school teacher at my kids’ school has a Harvard law degree, and two teachers at my former high school currently are Harvard law grads. If these folks aren’t practicing law, what chance do the rest of us have in this status obsessed profession?

    1. You all make the mistake of believing where you went to school and big law is all important. It's not. Your harvard degree is worthless in the rough and tumble world of law the country over where most lawyers practice. Your law school credentials has zero to do with how good a lawyer you are. It's kind of like the big shot lawyers from new York coming to florida and having their rear ends handed to them in court. Either you are good at practicing or not. Harvard or yale degrees or big law backgrounds do not tell the story It's all up to you.

    2. If you are a teacher or a doctor, nurse or dentist, you have a pretty good chance of being able to work until retirement in your profession and earn the median compensation for your field. No guarantees, but there is a relatively high percentage of people who entered these fields being able to have careers in full-time, permanent work in the fields they became licensed for.

      In law, you have in excess of 1.6 million law graduates of working age and only about 700,000 jobs. The bottom quartile of those jobs pay less than the median income in the United States for all workers.

      The point here is that favorable first year employment statistics for top law schools are misleading. The placements of new law graduates are for a few years only generally because of the nature of the jobs. After that, there is a structural supply-demand imbalance that will leave a large number of experienced lawyers with elite backgrounds who are working very hard in jobs where the law degree has added no economic value and the lawyer is struggling because there is not enough full-time permanent work for law graduates, even elite law graduates.

      The structural problem of very widespread underemployment for lawyers is not visible from looking at first year employment statistics for lawyers and it is surely not visible from published unemployment figures. You need to look at much less visible sources to understand the structural oversupply problem in the legal profession that gets worse with a lawyer's increasing experience.

      Going to Harvard Law School is playing in Vegas - but unlike Vegas, the odds against you increase as you get older. The odds against you are low when you are young, if you went to Harvard Law. Who would expect that from rosy first year employment statistics with good salaries?

    3. 8:21-you're missing the point. Attending Harvard or Yale will afford the student opportunities never made available at a TTT.

    4. Two different points. Both however relate to severe oversupply of lawyers.

      Any professional school that costs this much and leaves so many lawyers unemployed later in their careers is a Third tier toilet.

      The point is to issue a warning about top law schools. Prospective students need to know. The information is not readily available that many elite law grads are left holding the bag with law degrees that have no value. All it takes is losing one's job.

    5. 4:21 If you are a Harvard Law graduate over the age of 40 with all the bells and whistles - top undergrad, honors everywhere, federal clerk- and lose your first, second or third private sector job, you may not be able to get another full-time permanent or even temporary job as a lawyer.

      Do you think a small firm is going to hire an older person to work as an associate when they have an opening? Usually not. An older person is expected to have their own business. If you are out of work, you are not going to have business.

      Harvard or another elite law school is useless at that point. You are sitting home for months or maybe even years working on a job search with no interviews, or maybe an interview every year where 12 lawyers are being interviewed for each job. You have no income for those years and no ability to get an income as a lawyer. Whatever savings you have are being drained. You can work at Walmart for $11 an hour to make ends meet There is no place to turn to get decently paying work with that elite law degree with honors.

      A law degree that gets you big law as long as that lasts, which is not that long for most, is a disaster if the job market does not have any room for you to work after that.

      All these elite law schools are paths to economic ruin for many graduates because the job market for experienced lawyers is so glutted. There are only about 525,000 jobs paying more than $55,000 or perhaps a little more annually for over 1.6 million law grads. That is a 3 to 1 ratio of experienced law graduates to jobs.

      You need to subtract big law, law firm associate and clerkship jobs that only go to young people - that may be another 100,000 jobs easily and probably more. So you have in the range of 400,000 jobs for 1.5 million law graduates who are out of law school a few years or longer. That is worse than three law graduates for each paying job- almost four law graduates for each decently paying job.

      You wonder why the elite law degrees have no value if you are over 40 and lose a job? Almost 4 law graduates for each experienced job is why. Even if you take out the people who never get first year law jobs from the mix, you are still in a 3 lawyers for each job market when you are an experienced lawyer.


    On May 20, 2016, Paul Caron covered the lack of Biglaw layoffs in an entry entitled "Too Many Lawyers? Report Faults Firms For Resisting Layoffs." Enjoy the full piece:

    "American Lawyer, Too Many Lawyers? Report Faults Firms for Resisting Layoffs:

    Should law firm leaders be firing more lawyers? That seems to be the takeaway of a report released Wednesday by the legal consultancy Altman Weil.

    Nearly 60 percent of the 356 law firm leaders surveyed for the report said that overcapacity is hurting their firm’s profitability. The problem is more pronounced among firms with 250 lawyers or more, with 75.6 percent of them citing overcapacity as a drag on profits, the report said.

    Meanwhile, about 62 percent of law firm leaders said that demand for their services has not yet reached prerecession levels. While some firms are addressing the problem by trimming their ranks, many aren't doing enough, according to Newtown Square, Pennsylvania-based Altman Weil, which has been surveying law firms since 2008.

    “The most obvious solution to the overcapacity problem is to cut underperformers,” the report said, adding that firms know this, but “in too many firms, personal, political and cultural obstacles are hindering pragmatic economic decisions.” ...

    Seeger said that while the kinds of mass layoffs that accompanied the recession are now rarely in the headlines, that doesn’t mean firms aren’t trimming their ranks.

    Nearly 73 percent of the firm leaders surveyed said that they are removing chronically underperforming lawyers from their firms, and 93 percent said that they were reducing compensation as a way of dealing with less productive lawyers. Those practices were even more common at law firms with 250 lawyers or more, the survey found."

    Still want to take the plunge, Dumbass?!?! If you feel the need for more "education," i.e. huge sums of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, do something more practical. Don't go into debt for a chance to enter a GLUTTED field.

  14. I went to a fourth-tier law school. Afterwards, I networked my way into a federal district court clerkship, networked my way into a federal Court of Appeals clerkship, and then became a prosecutor. In the legal profession, we screen out the 45% that should have never gone to law school in the first place (i.e. those now unemployed), and it has been this way for awhile, since law schools refuse to correct the market and continue to graduate unqualified students in droves. I agree with Nando that 45% of the current graduates should have been screened out by the law school, but were not due to greed. But I find it hilarious that this blog, and its subscribers are all folks who either: (1) did not break into the legal market; or (2) broke into the legal market but are now broke. From the outside looking in, they discourage others so they can decrease the amount of competition. Unfortunately, that is not going to work--personality, ability to work with others, a poised bearing, and knowing the right people are the attributes that succeed

    1. 6:50 AM

      Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, you pompous asshat.

      Discouraging people to decrease the amount of competition?

      You can't be serious...

      Your entire ludicrous argument can be summed up as "Networking worked for me - because I knew the 'right people'".

      So, Thank You! You only prove what others have said here and elsewhere: Law is not a skill game. It's all about contacts - a circle of contacts - that can do each other favors to keep each other employed.

      So you never really were 'competing' were you? Because your "network" allowed you to bypass all that.

      And you don't have, and never had, a real job in the private sector. Just like the politicians in black robes, you consider yourself a great success in law because you have a paper pushing job at the expense of the taxpayers.

      So again, you don't really know what real competition is. You've never been forced to do it.

      So thanks for your pomposity and accompanying condescension. You're a fine example of survivorship bias in the 'noble profession'.

      In other words, just another asshole with an opinion..

      You got lucky. End of story.

    2. 6:50 am is very likely full of shit. Networking generally only works for those who have the ability to begin with. And I do not believe you can network your way to a federal appellate clerkship from the 4th tier. Not going to happen. No way. No day.

    3. Stonemason, Esq.May 28, 2016 at 12:28 PM

      You'd be amazed at the networking opportunities you get by being a member of the Lucky Sperm Club.


Web Analytics