STFU, L2L. You should have studied. Biglaw was w/in reach if you aced exams instead of posting on blogs.

I don't see any raises soon unless the credit markets stabilize. Things are very bad now and almost all deals being financed in the credit markets are on hold. The LBO market has stopped dead in the last week. Many Hedge Funds are in big trouble and stopping redemptions to investors. Expect many more to blow up and disappear. Lots of lost jobs in the Hedge Fund industry. Wall street is going to take a big hit as well. Expect bonus on the street to be well below 2006 and law firm bonus to also drop or stay the same. I don't see any increases in associate pay for at least a few years. last time after a market slowdown we waited from 2000 to 2006 for a raise. I wish it was not so but it is.

2:10 -- thats great and all if we were talking about firms buying each other, but theres no way firms like wachtell dont have the cash to raise. services firms dont need the same access to capital that manufacturing and other types of coroprate firms do.

Good point, 2:10. All my firm's clients called up yesterday and said they were closing down, too. Seems that there's no point in doing business any more. The corporate partners all said that there had to be some kind of creative way to get deals done even in the current state of financing, but they couldn't come up with any so all the clients shut down operations.

2:16:

The point is not that firms don't have access to capital. The point is that the salary pressures on law firms from the finance sector will ease since bonuses, jobs, etc. are all taking a hit.

2:10 is absolutely on the money. Not only are there not going to be raises, but firms are going to be shedding Associates by the end of 2007, even if they are hiring in droves right now.

I studied my ass off and learned my the subjects cold. Knowledge and ability has little to do with making top 10% at a tier 2.

You missed my point 2:16. The slowdown is causing deals to stop, which means a lot less work for law firms on the transactional side. Do you remember 2002 for corporate associates. Very very slow and very small bonus at firms. Also private equity and hedge funds will not be hiring so many people from firms. This reduces the need to raise.

2:19 - maybe they'll shed senior corporate associates, but I think bankruptcy and litigation would do just fine. Assuming, of course, things are as dire as some believe.

2:10 - couldn't have said it better myself. Anybody expecting a raise soon should get a clue.

very well 210, but with equity firms going public and IBs increasingly raising private equity there is no reason to think (IMO) that the financial sector has gone into hibernation.

and really... all this talk about the financial market really just determines wether the number of firms that can go to 200k is 12 or 100

{tear} goodbye sweet sweet raise... 2:10's logic is irrefutable

They're not taking the lockstep raises away 2:29.

Equity firms going public has nothing to do with anything, and besides, just look at the price Blackstone's shares are trading right now...

Everything in PE is pretty much on hold right now and nobody's doing any deals, plus there's a LOT of tension between the PE firms and Ibanks, it seems that everybody is talking about the Labor Day as the date when things will become a little clearer

2:16,

The top firms can afford to raise even if there is a slowdown, but there is no competitive need for them to do so when business is slow. I don' t think any more PE IPOs will be occurring soon. Have you seen Blackstone's performance since its IPO. It is down about 20% in a few months.

L2L,

Would you like some cheese to go with your whine?

2:10,

Do you think the wave of layoffs will lead to more frivolous Charney-esque lawsuits?

Agree completely with 2:10. The last 18 months to 2 years have been painfully dead for us insolvency types. But times they are a-changin' (I hope).

2:21(2)--Yeah, but the premium billing of deal work is RARE in BK and litigation.

Has ANYONE posting here actually lived through a market slowdown as a practicing lawyer? Partners protect their profits. Shearman fired dozens of associates; Davis Polk proferred a memo which intended to set the NYC market bonus at ZERO for ALL classes. You n00bs continue to be an embarassment to the profession.

That said, IF the present credit crunch is a momentary event and IF the ABS market doesn't crush more hedge funds and IF there isn't a major market correction (all things which are probably 50/50 in the next 12 months), THEN the big deal shops MAY raise to 200k.

BUT what do they do with the litigators? 1st year biglaw litigators don't (they just don't, except maybe Wachtell) generate the revenue to support those salaries.

Shearman's past 7 years show the problems with not having a strong litigation practice to backstop dealmaking slowdowns, so what to do? I expect bigger bonuses this year and, possibly, some sort of tiering of bonuses. Impossible you say? Morale killing, you say? What about the Cahill corpies who were made partner a year or 2 years early?

Want to talk about a morale killer--how about a classmate, perhaps a law school and SA classmate, at the same firm, possibly billing the same hours, suddenly making close to double what you do? And you still could get told you aren't making partner--perhaps getting shuttled into a counsel position--all because you chose to do litigation rather than corp/finance.

How would that make you feel? I'd be really, really irate, much more so than if that same classmate got a bigger bonus (even a lot bigger) because the cash realized based on his work was 75-100% higher than my realization. Not my fault, but that's life.

I think 500 blog entries complaining about making $160,000 instead of $200,000 is whining. Complaining about poverty is not,

2:10,

Do you think the wave of layoffs will lead to more Charney-esque lawsuits?

L2L,

Did somebody make you go to law school? No? Then stop whining. I'm sorry you're not happy with your life decisions.

2:44,

I hope not, don't know about that. My observations on the credit market come directly from clients and others in the financial markets (particularly Sales and Trading people who say no one is buying anything and everyone is scared shitless at how much their (supposedly low risk) holdings have dropped in the past week).

2:41 -- n00bs? Really? And we're supposed to take you seriously?

Stop hatin' on L2L. I think we can all have sympathy for his plight. Any one of us could be in the same situation were it not for dumb luck (and that's 90% of law school grades).

Imagine being in his situation - saddled with debt but few lucrative career prospects. Let the guy vent, even if it is annoying to you. Be grateful for what you have.

2:41:

Settle down, there, tough guy. I've been around for quite some time now and have seen some big layoffs in slow times--in the corporate department. That's all I was saying. The previous poster made it sound like firms were going to lay off 50% of associates across the board, when it would be more like 10% of corporate and a smattering elsewhere (but those would just be the people who the firms were looking for an excuse to get rid of).

You're right to suggest that big boom year bonuses/salary increases come when corporate is doing well, not when litigation is doing well.

2:50--Ah, you were happily ensconced in the frat house in '01-'02. The next couple years should be fun for you. Get ready to spend weeks preparing privilege logs in some crap warehouse in Jersey or another godforsaken place.

Relax Chicken Littles

Has anyone actually looked at the information for firms yet? The numbers (especially salary and hours) seem very very far off for New York firms like Cravath.

"Any one of us could be in the same situation were it not for dumb luck (and that's 90% of law school grades)."

You are clearly a retard. Some of us got lucky; the vast majority of us worked our tails off while the Loyola 2Ls of the world treated law school like undergrad. Dumb luck had nothin' to do with it.

Also, if this down cycle hits and hits really hard, Kirkland, Skadden and Weil are going to be busy as all hell. Large debtor work spins off tons of corporate and litigation work.

Isn't the point of these market analyses about the attempt of a group of firms to set themselves apart within the legal marketplace? I hate to sound simplistic about this, but that appears to indicate that the upward pressure stems from a desire to be unique in the marketplace, and therefore is not directly caused by a desire to keep midlevels from defecting to PE and Wall Street. I'll concede that I don't have firsthand knowledge of what most midlevels are experiencing these days, but to take this reporting on its own terms, I sense that--at least according to these analysts--the relative (in)stability of the client market has less to do with the raises than the legal market itself. Thoughts?

don't firms take the impending economic downturn into account when determining how many people to hire for the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009?

also, why are all of these mid-sized firms raising first year salaries to $160,000 when they know that their business will slow substantially?

2:21(2)--Only the first line was directed at your original comment. The rest was general thoughts--and really had nothing to do with you. I agree that there will be nothing like 50% layoffs, as firms have learned from Latham (90s) and Sherman ('01) that mass layoffs are REALLY bad for the firm. If it gets bad, tho, half of corporate will be doing something else (i.e. litigation).

Should everyone expect big bonuses this year? Yes, but only if things keep chugging along--if Q4 is slow, bonuses will not be nearly as big (at biglaw or on the Street).

Should everyone (even at only the top 10/20/40 firms) expect a $40k+ raise in base salary? I wouldn't buy a condo on that assumption. Higher salaries mean bigger incentives for partners to cut associates--they can take away your bonus, but it's basically impossible for a firm to LOWER salaries.

3:05 - right on the money. I was looking at them earlier, I looked at every single firm and was shocked by the 'averages' - high 50's for a work week? That makes no sense to me....any ideas? I would have thought closer to 70 hrs was average. Do we really think that all the people working 70 hr weeks just didn't bother to fill out the forms. I can't make sense of it.

2:10 = very clever partner.

The current credit problems will only be temporary. Give it a couple of months, and the money-printing machine will be back online. And at least at my firm, 1st half of this year was big enough that it would take a complete collapse for '07 PPP not to exceed '06.

Anyone have a username/password?

"while the Loyola 2Ls of the world treated law school like undergrad."

How would you know how hard I studied? In fact, I studied endlessly. In addition to the usual outlining, I read and outlined hornbooks. I mastered the material.

Then some old koot, who never even worked in law (seriously), screwed me over with a subjective law school essay exam.

3:11 is absolutely right. 2007 will be a banner year for all law firms, it already is at mine, it's a done deal unless there is a monumental collapse. If there is a slowdown, firms will simply reevaluate their hiring and bonuses next year. The interesting question is whether some truly elite firms won't bother to wait, and will raise to 200k in the next 6 months, not in the next 12-18 months when many more firms will be in a position to raise (barring a major slowdown).

3:10,

High 50's is an extremely high average. That is 2500 - 3000 hours a year. 70 hours a week average? are you nuts? That is well over 3000 hours a year. I think these self reported numbers are too high. High 40s seem about right to me. 48 hours for 50 weeks is about 2400 a year (2300 if 48 weeks).

If I get laid off I'm going to go Charney on my firm.

2:41 - Wow. Wrong on both counts. Try again any time you like. Just please don't say "n00bs". It demeans yourself and everyone else on this board. Oh, and it makes the baby Jesus cry.

I suggest any minority or female at-risk associate start preparing for their discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. Make copies of all of the "evidence" and get your story together now. If they want me to leave they're going to need to give me a mid six figure package.

3:17: The high 50s is for hours worked. NOT BILLABLES.
Average reported billables were around 42 hrs / week, and even if you worked every single week without ever taking a single goddamn day off, and worked Christmas, etc. that's only 2184 billables, which is WAY TOO LOW for many NYC law firms. It makes no sense for many many law firms.

3:10--I seriously have no idea. It really looks like American Lawyer screwed something up. It lists places like Cravath, Davis Polk, Dewey Ballantine, and others paying far below the national salary averages. If it was just a mistake about hours, I would think the firms were gaming the system. But I wouldn't think that any of these firms would want to be known for paying below market wages.

Settle down 2:10...this is not 2000 all over again. To date, there have been virtually zero high-profile corporate credit defaults (contrast to 2000 when there were major telecom and dot-com defaults/bankruptcies one after another).

In addition, credit risk is entirely more spread around than it was in 2000, and many of these institutions have hedged their risk more effectively (with instruments that did not even exist a few years ago).

So, will the stock market suffer a bit because of the credit crunch, no more 'LBO premium', etc.? Of course.

It seems unlikely, however, to cause the widespread meltdown you seem so confident in predicting.

3:24,

Things may stabilize. But only one investment grade debt offering has gone to market in the last two weeks.

L2L,

I have no idea what your study habits are and quite frankly, I don’t care. The fact remains that your grades aren’t what they could be because you didn’t do what you needed to do in order for them to be. If you spent 10 hours studying every day, perhaps you should have studied for 12. Or, perhaps it’s not that you’re not studying enough, it’s just that you are not being efficient with your time. Either way, figure it out and fix the problem. Your grades are not based on luck, they’re based on preparation. If you didn’t perform well, it’s because you weren’t fully prepared. Luck is when you do well because the professor asked the one question you were prepared to answer. There is no unlucky, only unprepared. Stop whining and focus.

read this. October may suck.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/business/01leonhardt.html?em&ex=1186113600&en=0c9a8860c3a2b63e&ei=5087%0A

Don't worry biglaw folks, you will and on your feet if downsized. Here are a few opportunities from Loyola Law School's job board. One of them is a Century City firm!

-------------------------

Employer Name:
Contact Name: xx
Address: xxx Century Park East
City: Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310-xx
Facsimile: 310-xx
E-Mail: xxx
Description: HOURS: Full-time. Monday through Friday, 7-8 hours per day (ideal for evening student). DURATION: Permanent. SALARY: $15.00/hour. BAR ADMISSION: Not required. QUALIFICATIONS: Candidate must be hard working and dependable. Looking for law school student who wants to learn about personal injury law. JOB DESCRIPTION: Draft letters, pleadings and other correspondence. Handle filing and other general office duties. HOW TO CONTACT EMPLOYER: Please call or e-mail employer with any inquiries. HOW TO APPLY: Please send resume, cover letter and references via US Mail, e-mail or fax. FIRM PRACTICE: Personal injury.
Date Entered: 07/31/07
Job ID: 414119

----------------------

Employer Name:
Contact Name: xx
Address: xxx
City: Chatsworth , CA 91311
Telephone: xx
Facsimile: xx
E-Mail: xx
Description: HOURS: Part-time. DURATION: Permanent. SALARY: $10/hr. D.O.E. STUDENT LEVEL: 1L, 2L, 3L QUALIFICATIONS: Working knowledge of WordPerfect/Word, great communication skills, extremely organized, shows initiative, able to problem-solve, works well under pressure, able to multi-task, bookkeeping experience a plus. JOB DESCRIPTION: Part to Full-Time. Duties include answering phones, sending facsimiles, typing correspondence, organizing files and evidence, possible legal research (Westlaw) and writing, possible light bookkeeping. EMPLOYER PRACTICE/DESCRIPTION: Real Estate and Business Law FIRM SIZE: 2 attorneys HOW TO APPLY: Submit resume and cover letter via e-mail to xx or fax to xx
Date Entered: 07/30/07
Job ID: 414062

Even if credit markets don't stabilize, bankruptcy will soar. Weil made 168 mm, and Milbank made 64 just in Enron. Either way, the firms are covered. Just make sure the firm has a thriving bankruptcy pracice as well.

L2L - top 10% is cushy; at Suffolk, you have to be top 5% to make it, and even then the firms are skeptical if you didn't do undergrad at an Ivy, so shove it, you had a better chance than many, so don't come whining here because you didn't make it.

2:52: Who cares?

This guy has been advertising how worthless he is for months and months on websites like this. It's not annoying; it's pathetic.

Loyola 2L: You didn't have to go to Loyola but you did. You sucked enough at undergrad to not be able to go somewhere with better job placements. Maybe you didn't do the math and maybe you didn't do your research. Either way: your fault. Then you went to law school and sucked enough there to not get into the top of the class. Then (unlike a number of T3 and T4 people that I work with at my top-10 firm), you sucked enough to not be able to get your foot in the door, have a good interview and make someone like you enough to give you a chance.

In short, you have sucked at least since college. It's not someone else's fault. You just suck. So stop already. All your constant ranting and raving is doing for me is encouraging me to reject Loyola applicants immediately for fear that they might be you.

2:52: Who cares?

This guy has been advertising how worthless he is for months and months on websites like this. It's not annoying; it's pathetic.

Loyola 2L: You didn't have to go to Loyola but you did. You sucked enough at undergrad to not be able to go somewhere with better job placements. Maybe you didn't do the math and maybe you didn't do your research. Either way: your fault. Then you went to law school and sucked enough there to not get into the top of the class. Then (unlike a number of T3 and T4 people that I work with at my top-10 firm), you sucked enough to not be able to get your foot in the door, have a good interview and make someone like you enough to give you a chance.

In short, you have sucked at least since college. It's not someone else's fault. You just suck. So stop already. All your constant ranting and raving is doing for me is encouraging me to reject Loyola applicants immediately for fear that they might be you.

L2L - I have no doubt that you study hard in law school, and I completely agree that grades are not a reflection on how you may perform in future employment. That said, being below the top-10% at a Tier 2 school is not a death sentence. I'm below top-10% at a Tier 2 and I'll be working at a Vault top-10 firm this fall. It can be done! Work on your job hunting and interview skills.

"Your grades are not based on luck, they’re based on preparation."

Being selected as one of the top 10% means nothing more than that. It doesn't mean you know more than me. It doesn't mean you studied harder. It only means that some old decrepit professor, who never even worked in law, and who has all the discretion in the world, chose you to be in the top 10%.

You have no idea what arbitrary assholes the professors are at Loyola. They literally auction off lunches with professors at Loyola. I’m not kidding. They hold auctions, and students bid (in groups of four) to see who gets the pleasure of having lunch with a professor! Last year some of the lunches went for $200! Obviously only naïve and hopeful 1Ls bid on these things, but I hope it shows you how Loyola’s professors perceive themselves.

my dad's friend is a partner at the nyc office of a v5. i've been slyly probing him about this. anyways i think his take is that even though m&a is going to slow down and the debt market is going to cool off, there will still be tons of countercyclical work. so....

195 by spring. all but guaranteed. YEEAH boii.

While in law school I never spent my time on boards like this.. instead I was getting grades to place me at the top of the class, moot court, getting published in law review, networking, gaining work experience externing for judges, govt agencies, etc... Crying on these boards is not the answer L2L!

L2L - Perhaps you'd like to tell us where you went to college, what your major was, your GPA and class rank, and your LSAT score.
I think that would reveal some things about how entitled you are to bitch about your plight.
I know people who went to The College of New Jersey (which you've probably never heard of) worked their asses of there, moved up to top-25 law schools, and from there it was off to Biglaw. Now, how do you compare to those folks?

3:44 PM:

Captain FIRST! cares!

Don't be such a douchebag. I know that L2L has been all over the place talking about his plight. There are many others just like him, who worked as hard, if not harder than you. Anyone who has taken a law school exam knows that law school grades are arbitrary.

That being said, let me offer L2L some advice:

Out yourself. Seriously... somone is bound to either take pity, give you a chance, or both. If things can't be worse (and you sound pretty down), it can't hurt, right?

BTW - 3:57 was Captain FIRST!

"L2L - Perhaps you'd like to tell us where you went to college, what your major was, your GPA and class rank, and your LSAT score."

Sure and I'll throw my SSN in for free. All I will say is that information wouldn't reveal what you think it would.

L2L - no so fast. If you went to UCLA and majored in history and got a 3.2 and a 162 LSAT, then tell us you went to Berkeley, majored in poly-sci, and got a 3.2 and a 162....

Does anyone wonder why Loyola2L only shows up in pay raise threads? Maybe he's just a greedy partner who wants to scare us with "they're starving in Africa" stories.

People used to think L2L was Lat's alter ego - certainly Lat is capable of this, but now he's just an annoying broken record with nothing new to say, so it's obviously not Lat.

I thought the statistic re firms being indifferent to the departure of almost half of departing associates was interesting. Do people think 49% is a legitimate statistic, perhaps because a lot of the people leaving firms are mediocre associates who are only there to pay off big loans? Or does that just reflect the fact that many partners are in denial about the training and other costs incurred by firms when decent associates leave? I know that I worked at one firm that had horrible attrition, but that never seemed to have lost a "good" associate based on the comments made by partners and senior associates after someone left -- even if people had raved about the associate's work in the past.

L2L, your schtick is cute, but please try to concentrate your posts in non salary related threads. You and your detractors are clogging up the comments section, diluting the salary puffery speculation, limiting the effectiveness of ATL as a forum for overinflation of salary expectations and, consequently, of salaries. Stop before you cost me $15k. Srsly.

I didn't go to undergrad. I was trained by Shaolin Monks who happened to be living in Amsterdam because they liked the relaxed attitude. And the prostitutes. They gave me a diploma that said I majored in roundhouse kicks and something called the "death touch." Apparently, I got a 3.3. I got a 141 on the LSATs, but when interviewing for law school, I kicked the guy in the throat and they let me in. Ever since I have been tearing pages out of casebooks and eating them soaked in tabasco hoping to absorb knowledge. Don't laugh, it got me in to the top 20%. I have the amazing ability to find low paying jobs and post them as if it took no effort at all. If anyone wants a copy of my resume, I'll be happy to send one on high grade paper. High grade POISONED paper.

(Don't be mad L2L, I thought it was silly to ask for your life story too.)

4:13--partners want to see many associates go to keep their profits high. period.

L2L,

You are missing the point. You very well may be smarter or more knowledgeable on the law than many of your classmates. That’s irrelevant. What is relevant is what you were able to write/type to answer specific questions on the date and time of your exams. If you were prepared, then you answered them well and your grades reflect that. However, judging by your constant whining on this board, I suspect that wasn’t the case.

As for the whole auctioning off lunches, they do that at many schools. It’s called raising money for the Equal Justice Foundation. A few years ago, my Con Law II professor went for over $1000. I didn’t win the auction, but I still got an A- in his class because I studied his old exams and went to office hours or sent emails when I needed clarification on the issues. In other words, I was prepared. (By the way, the purpose of going to lunch with your professor is not to improve your grade, it’s to establish a relationship so you use him/her as a reference in the future.) If you think your grades are arbitrary, you are the one who is being naïve. Instead of blaming your professors for your performance, you should focus on fixing the real problem: you. While study guides and the like are great, the best source is always the professor. Why? Because you’re not leaning the law, you’re learning professor so-and-so’s version of the law. Old exams, email, and office hours, that’s the key.

I could make a lot more money choking biglaw partners with a velvet rope.

L2L = Billy Merck

Actually, I look forward to following the exploits of L2L in the coming year, because he is soon to become L3L, and I imagine that his song and dance will become old even for him, and then he'll just disappear from our midst, or he'll continue to regale us with what it's like to work with a JD at Pottery Barn alongside people who didn't finish high school. Will he finally get a law job? Will he climb into the top 10%? Will he pass the Bar?! I can't wait to find out!!

Dear 4:24,

You, sir, are a douchebag.

Sincerely,
A

L2L: I didn't realize the job market was so tough. I'm a DePaul guy, and I seem to be doing ok.

As far as 200K goes, I don't know anything about it. However, I promise that if it does happen I won't turn it down.

Raising the salaries of first (and second) years isn't the way to go. Law firms will always get first and second year associates because we are desperate to pay off our student loans (and, for those who don't have student loans, because we are prestige seekers, or want more money, or want the training, or don't really know where else to go or what kind of law we want to practice so we accept offers from firms interviewing at OCI, etc).

Where the big gun law firms can distinguish themselves is in bonuses and, more importantly, associate compensation in the 3-5 year associate ranks. Those later ranks are where (1) associate leverage really starts making money for the partners and (2) where you start losing associates either to other industries or to other firms who poach the trained and skilled worker bees.

So if Cravath et al are going for a raise, I'm betting they are wise enough to raise where it matters: the middle to upper associate ranks. A better compression scheme is still something law students will know about and consider and it will allow firms to keep their associates.

4:51 --

I see your point, but considering around 50% of associates plan on leaving the firm within 3-5 years, this compensation scheme would put a firm at a disadvantage in its recruitment.

Higher compensation for midlevels might work, but then again it might not: people have exit opportunities after only 2-3 years at major law firms now and may not care about becoming a midlevel; or not-so-good associates will stick around for the extra dough and then you've got deadweight. Firms could give higher bonuses to their best associates, but that brings its own problems.

More qualified young lawyers should get paid more than less qualified ones.

cut the L2L crap. Thank you.

"I see your point, but considering around 50% of associates plan on leaving the firm within 3-5 years, this compensation scheme would put a firm at a disadvantage in its recruitment."

(1) Paying more at the midlevel might get them to change their mind, or at least keep them in years 3-5 (when many are jumping ship to another BigLaw firm).

(2) I continue to think that for top law firms, the problem isn't really recruitment but retention. A top firm has more top applicants than it has spots. That's why moving to 200 at the first year level doesn't really make a whole lot of sense -- it is not the point at which they have a recruiting disadvantage. At the midlevels, recruiting concerns are replaced by retention concerns. Top associates at these top firms (also known as sweatshop firms) are moving to lifestyle firms. The top firms will want to stop this, and more money is one way to go.

(3) Increasing bonus also crucial to associate retention and rewarding the hardest working and highest quality associates.

(4) As for associates who are deadweight (i.e., not really working or turning in sufficiently high quality work product for their paycheck), law firms that can't figure out how to deal with shaping them up or shipping them out will ultimately have very low retention, morale, and ultimately, PPP. It is incredibly damaging to morale for high performing associates to know that the slackers in the office next door are pulling the same salary with no repercussions. Those high performing associates are tired of taking on the work of the slacker associates and they're going to start looking to move elsewhere.

(5) I think law students are aware of associate compression, so changing pay structures at the midlevels still gives firms an advantage when recruiting on campus.

Well put 5:23.

Personally, I think the system would be a lot better off if the significant pay increases came at the mid - senior levels (whether in terms of salary or better bonuses).

Well put 5:23.

Personally, I think the system would be a lot better off if the significant pay increases came at the mid - senior levels (whether in terms of salary or better bonuses).

I also agree that, in general, law students can see beyond year 1, and significant differences in midlevel pay would be a recruiting advantage.

5:29 -- the comments we all see every day on this blog are proof positive that law students have serious trouble seeing beyond year 1. Many of them can't even see TO year 1.

"If you were prepared, then you answered them well and your grades reflect that. "

Do you really think only 10% of the class prepared for the exam, or only 10% answered the questions "well?" That's ridiculous. When most everyone is prepared, and the test is a subjective essay exam, the best grades are chosen by the whims of the professor. I don't know how they grade you at your T14 evening program, but here we were tested heavily via essay exams and checkmark grading. I was shocked to see one exam, riddled with points I picked up from hornbooks written by experts, receive very little credit from my no name nobody professor.

This is another reason why you shouldn't attend a tier 2 law school. Here, any idiot can get a professorship. I had professors who literally didn't work a day as a lawyer. They went from law school to clerk to Loyola.

This is why the "work hard and it will come" matra does not work at Loyola.

I need to get off this blog again. Every time I think of my school, I'm filled with negativity.

Do you know this $36,000 toilet is in the middle of a ghetto? I swear the other day I saw a group of homeless guys passing a joint in front of the school. Three guys, sitting in front of the entrance, passing a bud. They were probably graduates from 10 years ago.

Last year, one of the 2Ls was literally beaten unconscious a few blocks from the school. Everyone at Loyola knows of this, and the poor guy walked around school for weeks with a red mark on his forehead.

I have no idea how I'm going to get through my 3L year at this hellhole.

L2L--

I know about the loyola ghetto, I went to SC. Personally, I think your law school should be embarrassed they post minimum wage (i know the ones above are not) jobs. I agree you got ripped off, and possibly screwed in your grading. That being said, your career isn't over just because of where you went to law school, its just going to take you longer to get where you want to go.

At least that's what I keep telling myself...............

The notion that a Sullivan first year working say, 2600 hours a year get paid essentially the same as a Strook first year working 2000 hours is a joke.

On another note, L2L should stop whining. His overwhelming preference for complaining over bettering himself is enough to explain his lack of oppertunities.

you people are really dense. regardless of who L2L used to be, he is now anyone who wants to make fun of law students outside the big 14. Loyola 2L in this thread alone is at least 3 different people.

Big 14?

I'm a litigator who used to work at a top-10 shop. At least with respect to litigators, I think there's something that people are missing -- the work at a top-10 shop is horrible. Almost all securities-related. That means doc review and prepping partners for deps, but practically no opportunity to do or even defend deps yourself. Not surprisingly, people get to year 4 or 5 and realize that they need experience soon and its time to move on. . . So not only is there more work in terms of hours, but the work is of much lower interest, quality and importance for terms of building a career. Ergo, another justification for the S&Cs and Davis Polks to try to top lower ranking firms. . .

2:10 - The Dow took about a 250 point swing in the last minutes of trading. So obviously, all is well, the economy is fine, and good times are back again.

Is it widely acknowledged that, even among the specialties represented in BIGLAW, some practice areas are more lucrative than others? If so, which ones?

The article makes it sound like everyone should know that financial services practice is more lucrative than labor & employment work. Is that undisputed?

Are the less-lucrative practices (such as Labor & Employment) ones in which it is harder to make partner? Are there non-monetary benefits (QOL?) to the less-lucrative practices?

With all the information out there about law firms and their relative strengths in different practice areas, I'm surprised there isn't more information out there to use in choosing a specialty. I don't want to pick a dead-end, but I'm not particularly intrinsically interested in finance. How did the practicing attorneys on the board choose a specialty?

Lat - Maybe you could run a thread on practice areas and their relative merits?

My impression is that many law students target the most overall "prestigious" firms in their desired market, with little regard for the practice areas they may want to eventually go into. I would prefer to research and choose a practice area first, then evaluate firms based on its strength in that practice area.

So two questions:
1. What are the pros/cons of each practice area? Which are considered "high margin" and which are considered "commoditized". Does this depend on which firm/market?

2. How do you figure out which practice areas in which markets in which firms are high margin?

8:20-- Yes, it is widely acknowledged, but not frequently talked about in front of associates, especially in front of law students/summer associates.

In financial services, attorneys fees are so small compared to the investment banker fees (typically a % of the deal) that no one complains about our high rates. Employment work is either a) commodified work (setting up HR manuals, counseling, etc) or b) litigation that can be settled. Unless it is class action defense work or defending discrimination claims by high-salary individuals, the risk to the company in litigation is not large enough to warrant high legal fees.

Similarly, securities litigation, white-collar criminal defense, and bet-the-company IP litigation can withstand higher fees, while most business contract disputes and insurance defense can't.

But there is a lot of opportunity at the mid-market level to be very successful at some of these less-prestigious, less-high-value areas. Your practice at a big firm might be as a cog in the wheel of the giant M&A deals, but you could be a superstar at a mid-market firm.

Also, the high-margin/commoditized difference can vary within a practice area. For example, a real estate practice that focuses on land-use issues is going to be very different from one that involves REITs and securitization deals.

DO A PRACTICE AREA BLOG POST!

On the flipside, anyone know about TAX? Long-term viability within a firm? Is this rewarding work? I like cerebral stuff and have worked with the code this summer

Be quiet

That's an amazing figure that Big Firms will be hiring 10,000 first years next year. However, I tend to think that this indicates a top in the market and the economy. So callled experts were predicting similar things in 2000.

L2L:

The tests aren't as subjective as you think. While I don't doubt that you studied hard and mastered the material, you probably just don't have the knack for legal writing, or at least, law school exam-taking. It's not only what you know, it's how you convey it on the exam. Law school is about your ability to reason, not your ability to memorize.

Also, hornbooks are not usually that great of an idea, because they distract you from what the professor is actually teaching. You end up with different theories and angles on the subject (in addition to surplusage) that aren't covered on the test; when a prof sees this stuff, it doesn't impress him/her, it offends him/her.

10:57/dooder:

Aside from certain specialty areas like REITs, tax is generally looked upon as a "support" function in most firms. You are brought into others' deals to provide a small, but essential, piece of the puzzle. If the firm's management recognizes the essential role you play in the "big" deals, then all is well. On the other hand, if management does not understand how inherently different a tax practice is from other practices, you can be in trouble.

Tax work can be extremely complex and mentally draining. It is complicated by the fact that you are asked on a daily basis to answer questions in 10+ matters a day, each possibly dealing with a completely different area of the tax code. To make matters worse, the non-tax attorneys asking the questions do not usually understand or appreciate what is involved in answering their questions and they can get impatient when you can't answer off the top of your head (or alternatively, they simply write off your time). To the extent you have your own clients outside of the firm, the same principle applies to them -- it can be hard to explain why producing a 2-sentence answer to a "short" question took you 3 hours.

Also, as the pressure continues to keep PPP high while paying increased associate salaries, it becomes harder to justify a tax practice to anyone in management who is just looking at the numbers.

Don't get me wrong. I love what I do. But if I were you, I'd focus on firms that have an established and varied tax practice. Look for a variety of partners who focus on only 1 area. Beware of a tax group whose partners seem to do a little bit of everything.

Clarification to my 10:01 post:

If you want to have a hope of making partner in BigLaw, find an established practice and focus on 1 specialty. The only risk is that the tax code changes and your specialty becomes obsolete. But no risk, no reward.

If your goal is to spend 4-5 years in BigLaw, pay off your student loans and then move to a more QOL firm, it might not be a bad idea to go with the tax group whose partners are more generalists. You will get a lot of experience in many different areas, which will make you more marketable in the mid-market when you go to make the switch.

Can anyone tell me about a bankruptcy practice? Is it considered a high margin area?

10:13: To answer your question, consider that your clients are *bankrupt* -- you do the math.

I agree with the previous posters - a practice group discussion would be helpful. I would love to hear more about what people think about patent litigation / prosecution.

10:13-

There is some high-margin bankruptcy work, mostly representing creditors in large bankruptcies. Not a lot of that type of work lately, but we'll see what happens if hedge funds start filing . . .

10:13 & 12:38

The really high margin stuff (at least from the Partners' perspective) is debtor-side work, as it (a) really churns the associate hours, (b) begins pre-petition, unlike committee work and most creditor work, and (c) often continues after plan implementation, unlike most committee work and all basically all premium general creditor work. Lots of associate hours at A/M&A/Premium rates= lots and lots of profit. Creditor and committee work usually involves fewer associate hours, so, altho the partners still bill at prime rates, there is less profit.

The big benefit of committee work is that there is a little less price sensitivity b/c your bills are paid by the Debtor.

p.s. 11:20? You're a f'ing moron.

"The tests aren't as subjective as you think. While I don't doubt that you studied hard and mastered the material, you probably just don't have the knack for legal writing, or at least, law school exam-taking. It's not only what you know, it's how you convey it on the exam. Law school is about your ability to reason, not your ability to memorize."

None of that means anything. If you could reason you would know those are circular statements.

This is yet another reason why no one shouldn't attend a tier 2 school. Eventually someone gets top 10%, and boy do they get full of themselves. One second they're struggling like the rest of us, the next second they think they're legal kings. "I didn't get that A because of some toilet prof's whimsy, I got it because I’m awesome and you’re not." It's enough to make you want to vomit.

"Also, hornbooks are not usually that great of an idea, because they distract you from what the professor is actually teaching. You end up with different theories and angles on the subject (in addition to surplusage) that aren't covered on the test; when a prof sees this stuff, it doesn't impress him/her, it offends him/her."

This is true. You can learn a subject from the nation's master, but some inexperienced toilet professor still has the authority to screw you over.

Why does anyone think that L2L even exists? Can't anyone just post under the name "Loyola 2L"? Also, if L2L does exist, I think she's female. What do YOU think?

L2L: a single grade includes a fair bit of professorial whimsy, but a GPA is much firmer stuff. Condorcet Theorem, Central Limit Theorem, etc.