So why not let the law school grads with non-top-tier credentials prove themselves in the field?

Thank you for humbly considering the possibility of our competence.

I wonder hwat there partner profits are like.

Nice for lower tiered people. Hopefully it helps some of the L2L's of the world. Still, I'm sure most would rather make $160k from the get go. The point is to pay off loans and see if you like it, maybe a shop like this is for career big law lawyers? I can't imagine wanting to move up at my firm, once my loans are paid off this year and I have a nice down payment on a house, I'm jumping ship for in house.

FIRST BITCHES

Nice for lower tiered people. Hopefully it helps some of the L2L's of the world. Still, I'm sure most would rather make $160k from the get go. The point is to pay off loans and see if you like it, maybe a shop like this is for career big law lawyers? I can't imagine wanting to move up at my firm, once my loans are paid off this year and I have a nice down payment on a house, I'm jumping ship for in house.

Who would want to work big law hours for $60K?

So to be clear, this firm's policy is to hire 2 or 3 associates at $60 instead of 1 at $160 and then let Darwin take over? Sounds like fun, but no thanks. Maybe a decent idea to pull in the disgruntled laterals but why would anyone ever, ever go there as a first year? Unless there are some great QOL issues that for some reason don't mention.

It's an interesting idea, but the fact remains that they are paying associates less at precisely the time when they need more money the most because of the costs of starting a life, paying off loans, etc.

They're still stingy about your grades and your rank. They're trying to put off the vibe that it's "less competitive per se" with the big shops, but in essence, you still need to be in the top 20%-25% to even get an interview.

Don't be fooled!

10:24: You're not smart/talented/hard working enough to even get a Tier 1 school to accept you. The lower Tier 1 schools have LSAT ranges in the mid to upper 150s.

You're telling me you couldn't break a 155 on the LSAT but want to 'prove yourself' by having someone pay you $160k to do long hours and mentally hard work? You couldn't even put in enough time to get a decent LSAT score, otherwise you wouldn't be at a Tier 2.

i've also heard that people work just as much, if not the same/more, as the biglaw associates in NYC. All that for a fraction of their salary. That's how they weed out the people - people who are willingly taking the risk that they MAY possibly be moved up to the big salary. Is it worth it to have no life for 60k?? Not me.

10:35 - I agree with that. You can get 60k at a local PI firm and have a much better QOL.

for those too myopic to see beyond their own T14 world, "letting Darwin take over" is only frightening for those who would rather simply coast on their academic "pedigree" than do actual quality work. it isn't a bad deal for those students who will make good lawyers, but just might not have gotten off to a good 1L start.

"But recruiting two different types of associates could lead to problems, he said.

'Are you going to have a conflict of culture or pedigree if the firm is attracting a certain kind of associate because of the salary the first two years then attempting to attract laterals from a different realm?' Ocko said."

probably not, b/c by the time attorneys get into their third or fourth year of practice, they realize all that counts is the work you do, not the name on the piece of paper on your wall.

I don't know... they don't really have to wait for a crackhead to bring them $500 for it to be a good day.

10:24 - Agreed. Why do people think they can saunter through life, get a horrible LSAT/GPA, get into a T2/3/4 school, be nothing special in their class, and then make BIGLAW salary with the professionals and hard workers?

I think it's cute.

Look, if the guy hit another summer associate, he deserves to make 60K.

Financially, it's the same thing as a clerkship: work for crap for two years and then get paid. Except clerkships don't have billable hour requirements. I would be nervous that it would be extremely cutthroat there to get into that higher pay scale.

Warning to associates! 90% of the firm’s associates are new grads. THEY DON’T HAVE ANY SENIOR ASSOCIATES. Based on their demographic data, they use you for a few years and fire you before giving you the raise. As evidence, below is a list of their associates, with their JD year.
————————
Danielle Berti - not admitted
Nicholas Brunero - JD 2003
Brian Ferrara - JD 2005

Alan Florendo - JD 2006
Joseph J. Galvano - JD 2003

Carolina Gonzalez - not admitted
Christopher M. Gorman - JD 2004

Irán Hopkins - JD 2001

Themes Karalis - JD 2003

Caroline Katz - JD 2005
Jennifer A. Kelly - JD 2004

Sam Khantsis - JD 2006
Mark Khmelnitskiy - JD 2004
Joshua C. Klein - JD 2001

Sara B. Kolb - not admitted
Lawrence Z. Kutsher - not admitted
C. Kim Le - JD 1999

Marina Levitsky - JD 2004

Cory McLaughlin - not admitted

Violeta Petrova - JD 2006

Kristyn M. Redmond - not admitted

Eric Seltzer - not admitted

Matthew Spitzer - not admitted

Stacie E. Trott - JD 2006

Joshua Wade - JD 2006

1039, you're discounting the fact that it takes hard work to get into a good school, you act as if it takes laziness and stupidity to do well in undergrad and coast into a T14. if the lower tiered students had worked hard, they would have the same opportunities.

10:27 - nice writing. Tier 4?

You idiots who are totally obsessed with the tier # need to look past that and realize that many of the top grossing lawyers in the world went to T2 or below. Tier # is really not an indicator of success.

re: disgruntled 3rd, 4th and 5th-year associates:
"We pay the same or more, and we say that the partnership is yours to lose," Stachenfeld said.

"Isn't a job paying $60,000, with the possibility of a Cravath-level salary a few years down the road, preferable to the grim fate of "reviewing documents for as little as $20 an hour"?"

Getting paid $60,000 to bill over 2,000 works out to about $30 per billable hour. Assuming these clowns are there for 2,400 or 2,500 total hours, their effective hourly rate is somewhere in the neighborhood of ... $24.

Yes, $24 > $20, but I think we're splitting hairs at this point. The only inexorable conclusion to draw from all of this: it sucks to be a TTT grad.

so, they take a batch of first years hungry for a job, hold up a carrot and tell them to spend the next 2 years fighting for it, last man/woman standing gets it?

that sounds like it would make for a truly toxic workplace environment.

Look at the demographic data in 10:44 people. All those "not yet admitted" associates are 2007 JDs. 90% of their class is JD of 2005 or later.

Doesn't seem like they promote anyone ot mid-year.

who wants to bet that the partners at this firm are refreshing every minute?

10:34,

Your stats show precisely whats wrong w/ your whole ranking / tier mentality. If you look closer (after all you should be capable since you are a brillant tier 1 student/ grad) you'll see there are "tier 2" schools with avg LSATS in the low to mid 160s - maybe not great, but certaintly not too shaby.

10:44, of course some people work hard in undergrad, but then again, there aren't a ton of lawyers who really tackled tough UG majors, either. color me less than impressed with a 3.9 Poli Sci major.

and let's not kid ourselves by pretending we live in a perfect meritocracy. my 3.7 self-funded state school engineering degree isn't worth nearly as much to an admissions officer as someone else's 3.7 legacy-parent-funded Yale poli sci or art history degree. not even close. that's OK with me, but let's call things as they are.

i'm not referring to a 170 vs. a 150 LSAT...the difference between ending up at NYU or Fordham (or Penn/Temple, etc) is a few different answers. that's as attributable to chance as it is to hard work, but the exit opportunitites are vastly different. did the person w/ a 179 study that much harder than a 169 scorer? probably not.

similarly, say I have the flu the day of my contracts final. there's no asterisk on my B- to indicate that...i'm stuck with it, and suddenly not as qualified as my healthier classmates, regardless of what grades i may post up later.

while the above isn't my situation, i can see how it's closer than i like to think.

10:56 you really suck at math don't you?

Your point is taken BUT 36% of the associates listed are 2005 or earlier bar admission. And no, I would not want to work in a firm where it was understood that some sort of "lord of the flies" selection process was going on.

Where in the world did you get 90%

Maybe if they had a reduced billable requirement of 1750 hrs or something, 60k is worth it. They can then require an additional 100 hours or so to "train".

If not for the same hours as biglaw, it wouldn't be a bad tradeoff.

I'm sure there are LOTS of people who say, they want to "suck it up" for 2 years...but will anyone really be able to make it? Is the work environment toxic? Yellers/screamers/no vacation time? You can only beat associates down for so long.

My firm (Southern litigation boutique, 40 lawyers, 4 offices) follows a similar system. We start 1st years out at about 1/2 - 2/3rds market (CBC), but raise consistently with good performance. A third year billing approximately 2000 hours a years (which translates to only about 40-50 hours a week given our practice areas), however, will earn approximately 110-150% of their classmates working at big firms.

There is a downside to this, however, at least at my firm. That is that the eat what you kill mentality spills over to partnership as well. Thus there is no make partner in 5 years (the average track if you are a good producer), then coast on the backs of the associates for the rest of your life. You essentially have a second clawing for business after making partner so that you can slow down and enjoy it.

It's all about confidence though. If you believe that you can go out and make yourself an asset to the firm, you will make more than your peers. We looked at merging several years back and simply couldn't because the much larger firm simply couldn't maintain our senior compensation levels despite having billing rates about twice our hourly. If you are dead weight here though, you're hosed.

10:59...agreed. I bet is on the 19'' projection tv in the lobby.

8/25 (32%) are "not yet admitted" meaning 2007 JDs.
5/25 (25%) are 2006 JDs.
The other 12 associates are 2005 or earlier, and so they're on the Cravath pay scale.

Uh, by my count, 2005 JDs are not 3rd years. At least, not until January. Check back in 4 months.

Wait, if you were hired in September 2005 (JD 2005), wouldn't you be a third year now?

Do you even believe the bs you are writing? Because no one else does.

10:34 - I wasn't sure, but I thought you were completely wrong, so I looked it up, and you are. Looking at the Tier 1 schools, the 25/75 LSAT ranges start at 170-76 (Yale) and look more like this:
15 - UCLA - 162-69
20 - BU - 159-66
around 30 - William/Mary - 162-66
around 40 - Wake Forest - 161-65
around 50 - ASU - 155-62

In the few Tier 2 schools I looked at, the ranges were generally around 157-162, and they were higher at places like Brooklyn (162-64). It's not until you're in Tier 3 that you see 160s fall out - NYLS is 152-57, Syracuse is 153-57, etc. I think it's a mistake to assume that just b/c people didn't know what they were in for, they're neither capable nor hardworking. I'm not trolling - I went to a good tier 1 school, but there is a ton of compression in LSAT ranges, and you seem like kind of a jerk.

11:07 - What's the firm? No reason not to disclose, sounds attractive.

Google to 600!

Wow, so many of you assume that lower tier people are idiots. Personally, I think it was pretty smart to take that full scholarship to a lower tier school, and walk out of law school in the top of my class with zero debt, and not be forced to slave my ass off at a Biglaw firm just so I can make enough to pay off my loans and not starve. Wow, I actually get to work at a firm where I can have a life, watch my kids grow up, and spend my income on fun things like cars and TV's, and not send it off to some student loan service. But hey, what do I know, right? I'm just an idiot from a lower tier school that was accepted to every top and second tier school I applied to. Thanks for confirming my choice to not work with Biglaw associates who seem to think that prestige is the most important thing in life.

"and let's not kid ourselves by pretending we live in a perfect meritocracy. my 3.7 self-funded state school engineering degree isn't worth nearly as much to an admissions officer as someone else's 3.7 legacy-parent-funded Yale poli sci or art history degree. not even close. that's OK with me, but let's call things as they are."

my undergrad engineering GPA = 3.3
my law school = top 10
my law school GPA = a whole lot higher than 3.3

at least some admissions folk seem to understand that at many schools engineering is essentially an honors program

11:32 - you made the right call for you. Don't be upset that we're all better than you now.

P.S. We have cars and other consumer goods also. Probably more than you do.

The system should be like in the movie "Fracture," where the hero gets hired by some wierdly sexy Biglaw shop after beating their only associate in a case. It should be like tribal combat: the firm should pay $300k to all associates, and if you can beat an associate in litigation, you get his job.

Message to all T2 and lower: Not a Tier Snob is right. These guys need to post here saying how much other places suck and desperately whining about thier year end bonuses because their life otherwise pretty much sucks.

There are really three classes of law schools: The T1s filled with the pricks that post to this website. The T2,3 and 4 filled with real people who go out and actually practice law and the barely accredited which are really just committing fraud. Do your research, know what real lawyers do for a living and how much they make, and go for it.

11:32 - you made the right call for you. Don't be upset that we're all better than you now.

P.S. We have cars and other consumer goods also. Probably more than you do.

More Duval stats –

16 admitted associates:

BY CLASS: 4 class of 2006; 3 class of ’05; 4 class of ’04; 3 class of ’03; 1 class of ’01; 1 class of ’99.

BY LAW SCHOOL: 1 American U.; 5 Brooklyn; 2 Cardozo; 7 Fordham; 2 Hofstra.

(Not included were 8 Non-admitted associates of unknown law schools.)

Hummm…. If this firm publicly states that it recruits low tier law students, why are the majority of admitted associates from a tier 1 law school? I’d love to know where the eight non-admitted associates went to school. I wouldn’t be surprised if it follows a similar distribution as the admitted associates. In conclusion, I think this is mostly hype – designed to get their firm’s name in the press.

I love this model. This is a model lots of biglaw firms should consider. Broaden the field of new associates who can enter into the firm and let all young associates to prove themselves BEFORE paying them a king's ransom. Creates lots of competition at the junior level and results in the best and brightest mix at the mid and senior levels.

That's the only thing you're pursuing in life? Family + Kids + Love life > all of your material goods.

You're chasing the wrong things and you should really re-evaluate what motivates you. Otherwise, most likely you're going to die alone wondering why you were never happy even with all the money in the world.

*not 11:32

Uh oh -- somebody call the whaaa-mbulance! Not surprisingly, lower tier lawyers and law students are complaining again about how unfair it is that we all can't love and appreciate them for not being smart and/or ambitious and hardworking enough to get into a better law school! They are just as good as we are, even though we worked harder, studied longer, and have now attained better jobs, more money, and hotter dates. I'm going to find a nice roquefort to go with all that whine.

11:03 - good point. I am doing fine now in biglaw (from T2 schoo) but I was not able to get into as good of a lawschool because my undergrad gpa was low due to a double engineering degree and had the time of my life partying and barely studied. If only I would have studied 24/7 for my poly sci or history degree then maybe I would have gone to as good of a law school as the losers on this board. But during undergrad I was not planning on lawschool or even grad school so I didn't focus on grades as much as I should have.

11:32 - So now you have a worthless degree, but at least you didn't pay for it!

Good for you!

Now, what about lion's share of people who paid $165k for a NYLS degree and weren't in the top 5% of their class? Hmmmm?

I'd rather work with people with liberal arts degrees and T1 legal theory educations than narrow-minded workhorses from T3. I like being a part of a learned profession. I like being surrounded by smart people who like to think. Hardworking T3 grads are going to ruin this profession. I'm not even kidding a little bit.

To all of you saying this is a good idea that should be emulated by BigLaw firms -- are you insane? Mike at 11:44, how is $160K a "king's ransom?" It's barely enough to get by on for many grads of top law schools in places like SF and NY, and loaded down with educational debt. This compensation scheme, if it became more widespread, would do nothing but transform top law firms into fetid, primordial stews of the conniving and incompetent, sprouting like fungi from schools that should never have been accredited. Don't call me for legal help in five years -- I'll have moved on to a field where my work is fairly compensated.

11:48 - please, my undergrad engineering gpa was a 2.7, a low engineering gpa doesn't equate to attending a T2 school.

How can there possibly be as many 2d tier attorneys in BigLaw as there are people on ATL who claim that they are from a Tier 2 but "doing just fine in BigLaw?" There are none of you at my office! My guess is that this is a very wide definition of BigLaw more like the AmLaw 200 and less like the V20.

Well, 11:59, if you are actually a real associate (and not a 2L troll, which is what I suspect), you don't work at Wachtell, Cravath, the NYC offices of S&C, Skadden, or Davis Polk (the Vault top 5). All of the above firms have some attorneys who are graduates of T2 and (shock! horror!) T3 schools.

11:59 - are you trying to say that people from Tier 2 cannot get into BigLaw unless your are top 10% or Law Review, even on a lateral move, later on in one's career?

stats guy-

most on this board would refer to american, cardozo, hofstra, and fordham as tier 2 schools...there's basically the top 14 (tier 1), and then the US News 15-100 (tier 2). then again, others may use the terms differently, just like "biglaw." 11:59 uses it to refer to 20 firms; others use if to refer to AmLaw 100 firms.

10:44, I see 3 senior associates on that list you posted.

Let me just say this about whether $60K is worth it. If you can get a job at Cravath et al., do so. If not, this firm pays what it pays, and you can decide whether or not to accept the job.

Lazy, stupid associates come from all over, including Tier One. The lockstep pay scale is a boon for them.

This sounds like a great thing for those shut out of top tier schools/firms. Also, the low pay initially seems a lot like the British trainee system (although they don't have three years of law school debt to pay off...), where those just out of school are paid less for 2 years because they're still learning how to be a lawyer.

173 LSAT, 3.93 UGPA. Chose to attend TTT for free and graduated #1 in law school class with no debt. Clerked for federal court of appeals, working at biglaw, racking up possessions and hot dates. You all got it wrong.

What is also interesting is that most of the partners there are graduates from top schools (Harvard, NYU, Cornell)

12:19 - Thanks for the clarification, but I beg to differ: T1 = 1-50. If T1 schools were only the top 14, we wouldn't use the term T14.

I don't know about this. I seem to remember this same firm making a PR splash in 2001 or so, the height of the bubble, for paying an above-market starting salary -- yes, at or above the Vault top 20 firms. So now they have done a 180 degree term? Looks like a lot of flailing about to me, without a real purpose or solid plan.

12:31: color me dubious about your claims . . .

Hi there 12:11. I never said I was in NYC, try somewhere on the West Coast. True, not everyone I work with went to Stanford, but then again, there aren't any former Loyola 2Ls either.

12:33:

fair enough, but i'd argue that i've usually seen schools described as either T14 or T2. but since my school was in the 40-50ish range, i'll happily subscribe to your definition.

It doesn't sound like everyone is a winner at Du-val & Stach-en-feld

Wow, the engineer with the 3.7 GPA from the T2 is still not that bright. I had a 3.6 overall in undergrad with a 3.3 in my major (B.S. Bio, Chem minor) [poor class attendance and studying only for exams], and I still attended a Top 10 law school. I studied only one month for the LSAT and got a 170.

I don't know any law school in the country that, all other things equal, would think that the 3.7 engineer wasn't the equivalent (or better) than a 3.9 poli sci major - something else is going on here.

12:31 - Awesome. So you didn't take the full ride (like you probably would have gotten with those stats) at GULC, NU, Cornell, Duke and went to a Tier 3 school.

Glad it worked out for you.

I have a friend who won the lottery and is now a millionaire, I suppose that means it's a wise investment for everyone!

12:31 is the Loyola dean.

The system is what it is, but make no mistake about it, law school is not the same as lawyering.

Bottom line, with the right mindset and some attention to detail, lawyering isn't hard, per se. It's all the posing and posturing and b.s. that inevitably comes about when you get lawyers together in the same room that makes it hard. We're like akitas that way.

The problem is that law school is so determinative of your "status" that trial wins and reported cases are not enough to get you to BIGLAW once the die has been cast.

To some degree, if you are a "late bloomer," you are just going to have to accept that BIGLAW, and all that comes with it, just isn't going to happen for you. Maybe that's a good thing. However, it doesn't make you any less of a lawyer.

While the money's great, BIGLAW isn't for everyone. It will be BIGLAW's loss and someone else's gain if you hang in there, work hard, and have faith in your skills. A little confidence (when you've earned the right to have it) goes a long way...

Regarding class rank, BigLaw, and money - after reading the comments - I offer this, especially to L2L:

Undergrad GPA: 3.5 (biology)
Tier 1 / Top 25 law school GPA: 3.0

I didn't start at BigLaw, but I worked my way up to an AmLaw 100 firm. Along the way, I got great reviews, nice raises and bonuses, and such great experience that I NAILED my interviews going up the chain and got a signing bonus at the BigLaw firm. It CAN be done, regardless of where you start. In fact, where you start can put you right up there with the Big Boys (oh, and I'm a girl).

As for money, several of my friends at AmLaw 100 firms have left to start their own firms, where they are making more money - some making more money than they did as equity partners in an AmLaw 100 firm.

Class rank, GPA, and BigLaw, although they have their place, are often overrated.

"did the person w/ a 179 study that much harder than a 169 scorer? probably not."

The guy with the 179 might not have studied harder, but he is a lot smarter.

The difference between a 179 and a 169 on the LSAT is the different between a 1380 anda 1580. One gets you into UCLA. The other gets you into Princeton.

'173 LSAT, 3.93 UGPA. Chose to attend TTT for free"

I call BS. With those numbers, you could have gone free to Columbia, NYU, or Chicago. Why would you choose to attend a TTT?

If you had to study for the LSAT you are automatically a loser. I just got in my car, played a little foghat driving over, got a 171, had lunch. Went to a T10 state law school for in state tuition, with a scholarship, graduated with 50 of loans and a nice job in the flyover. Eat Me!

"Not a tier snob | September 25, 2007 11:32 AM"

You are an idiot. Anyone who can't pay off $120k of debt in two years while working at biglaw is a spendthrift. You don't need an apartment that costs $3k.

That makes no sense whatsoever. How do you propose to pay off 120 in two years?

1:54 Anonymous said: "If you had to study for the LSAT you are automatically a loser. I just got in my car, played a little foghat driving over, got a 171, had lunch. Went to a T10 state law school for in state tuition, with a scholarship, graduated with 50 of loans and a nice job in the flyover. Eat Me!"

Doubtful you will get anywhere in practice, and if you had interviewed with me, you wouldn't have gotten the job.

What is with all the snobs on this board? Are you just having a little fun with the anonymity, or do you really think that won't catch up with you? I am the 1:32 post. I worked my way up to AmLaw 100, and I can smell arrogance a mile away. It will get you f'ing nowhere except back on the elevator fast.

your career-

i'd wager the paycheck that was just droped off to me that 3/4 of the arrogant snobs on this board wouldn't have the stones to cop such an attitude in person.

^^(despite my terrible grammar and spelling, of course).

bad spellers of the world, untie!

'173 LSAT, 3.93 UGPA. Chose to attend TTT for free"

I call BS. With those numbers, you could have gone free to Columbia, NYU, or Chicago. Why would you choose to attend a TTT?

Answer: It was in my hometown and allowed me to tend to family obligations. Bottom line is that it was convenient and hassle-free, and going to NYU, Chicago, etc. forces you to take on a greater measure of debt just in living expenses than I felt was worth it.

Oh 2:14, the irony of posting such an arrogant reply warning of the dangers of arrogance.. but then what can one expect from a lower-tier graduate? (I'm not sure your elevator goes all the way to the top, friend.)

120k can be done in two years. that's 2500 per month and two year-end bonuses at 30k (after-taxes - that is).

you might have to live in brooklyn though :(

2:31, clearly you didn't read my 1:32 which I mentioned in my 2:14. You must have made an A in research and writing, cross-reference genius.

...or maybe I just like winding people up on the internet. Hey, it's a slow billing day. Ciao.

2:31/2:54: ok, cool, fun. ciao.

The article seems to imply that they are targeting laterals for these high-paying mid-level postions. That can't be good for morale among the entry-levels.

3:28,
Only young lawyers and law students think that "morale among the entry-levels" is comperable to the value of a decent lateral.

See, it is like baseball. A lateral is a major leaguer with a track record. An entry-level is a prospect. Some prospects turn out to be Willie Mays, but most are busts.

11:51 --

D-bags like you are going to ruin this world. I'm not even kidding a little bit.

Although the system is admittedly Darwinian, I can say, as an alum, that putting in 3 years there allowed me to make a jump to a mega-firm that I otherwise would have been unable to make. The firm recognizes that when it comes down to it, high law school GPA's are not necessarily indicative of someone's ability to do good work. While the firm definitely has certain academic requirements, they are not as stringent as they are at BigLaw. I can say now that I am at BigLaw that the work I did at Duval was comparable- if not more complex.

4:17 -

My point was that by enticing entry-levels to work for a relative pittance on the promise that they'll be compensated for it as mid-levels and then turning around an giving those better-paid positions to laterals instead, the firm is effectively underming the very incentive they're trying to create to recruit entry-levels in the first place. Whether that's a good idea or not depends, I guess, on whether there are people both desperate enough to take these entry level positions despite this and competent enough to do the work.

4:17 -

My point was that entry levels need to go into this with their eyes wide open. They will not only be competing against each other for those few midlevel spots, but against potentially more qualified people from better firms.

4:40 -

Did you leave for biglaw because you were not offered a midlevel position? If you were offered one of those positions, why would you go into biglaw when the firms is matching, if not beating, biglaw salaries and giving you more interesting work/better partnership opportunities?

I have a friend from law school who works there and loves it - she is the only one of my law school friends that is still happy at her firm. She got promoted to the full salary significantly before the two year period. You are only competing with yourself - they promote everyone they feel is working at the right level and they have not hired in any laterals since she has been there (I know because I keep trying to get her to pass along my resume).

This place is filled with a'holes! They have no support staff so basically all first years are paralegals and assistants to the mid levels. The idea is they make money off the first years by paying nothing but charing the clients a decent amount, then at the end of the year, force most of them out and keep a few. Repeat the next year.

I was offered a mid-level position (and was actually promoted early). I left only because I wanted to get the prestige of a BigLaw name on my resume (in the event I decide to do something else, i.e. go in-house, go work for a bank, etc.). Also, I wanted to get a broader client base. The clients they have are top notch, but there are (obviously) fewer big name clients that you find at BigLaw.

5:00

I was offered a mid-level position (and was actually promoted early). I left only because I wanted to get the prestige of a BigLaw name on my resume (in the event I decide to do something else, i.e. go in-house, go work for a bank, etc.). Also, I wanted to get a broader client base. The clients they have are top notch, but there are (obviously) fewer big name clients that you find at BigLaw.

"My point was that by enticing entry-levels to work for a relative pittance on the promise that they'll be compensated for it as mid-levels and then turning around an giving those better-paid positions to laterals instead, the firm is effectively underming the very incentive they're trying to create to recruit entry-levels in the first place. Whether that's a good idea or not depends, I guess, on whether there are people both desperate enough to take these entry level positions despite this and competent enough to do the work."

Exactly. As far as entry-level goes, they are no different than other crap law firms except that the promise of BIGLAW salaries as mid-levels and seniors keeps them there and working hard.

The article says that HALF of juniors get "Weeded out" before they get that BIGLAW mid-level/senior salary. So in essence if you go work there fresh from law school, you are on 2-3 year probation and have to prove yourself or else you get canned and will have to go to the public defender's office. Even if you get promoted, you now compete with ex-Cravath/Sullivan/etc associates for phsip. Good luck with that.

I'm confused, if you make $60,000 and the billables are suppossed to be 2000 hours, so you would need to be at the office a min of 3000 hours a year to hit that target......you make $20 dollars an hour??????? Yea, good deal

I

I worked there and promise you they are crooks. They pay the reduced salary under market but I saw my billable rate on one of the deals and they billed me to the client at almost $300/hour. THEY kept the profits. Don't beleive this "innovative" shtik - everyone normal leaves the firm within a year because it is unbearable. You live in the office. It is a sweat shop. It is nasty. And I recall hearing associates being yelled at on a consistent basis. Oh -- and they stiff you on salary...as you can see. You have been warned.

Since there is 0 support staff, as a first year, mostly your work will consist of making the changes a mid level has to his/her document or printing out his/her emails....this is what is saving their clients money? 300/hr for a law grad to do that? Its making them money but not passing it on to clients...its a sham

I'll add to what has already been said...they pad the bills there, a practice that is unethical and illegal. I remember one client matter where I was kept in the office until 4:30am every day for 2 weeks while I did nothing but surf the web (they told me to). They said I was there "just in case" they needed me. But they billed EVERY second to the client!

5:38
...."THEY kept the profits." ....How do you think partners at any firm make the salaries they make? You got it- they keep the profits.

Get Real - you think its ok for a firm to exploit associates, under paying them, and to over bill their clients...all to turn an extra profit for the partners? You are clueless

If associates know what they are getting paid up front and choosing to go there, then how are they being exploited? Most first years don't do all that much and clients are charged far more by other firms for those same meaningless tasks.

4:27:

You mispelled "run"!!

"D-bags like you are going to ruin [sic!!!!!!] this world. I'm not even kidding a little bit."

Posted by: loving my TTT 12:31,

Then you suddenly left your beloved hometown for biglaw and a clerkship? What happened to your family obligations? There wasn't a first tier or second tier school in your home town?

BS

I have spent the past 12 years at a major law firm (Vault Top 10) that hires from both T14 and schools that, while not at the top, would generally be considered in the top 50 (Fordham, George W., etc.) You need to be a star to get in if you don't come from T14 (ex. top 5%, Law Review, etc.) The reason we impose these criteria: when hiring, firms must be efficient. There is no way we are going to grant an interview to every law student that wants one. That would cost too much in terms of atty time. Thus, we must impose certain objective criteria to eliminate the vast major of students. So far, the best anybody has come up with is (i) where you went to law school, and (ii) how you did in law school. This is an imperfect system, as anybody can have a bad day on the LSAT or a first year civ. pro. exam. Everybody involved in the process knows that. Everybody knows that some guy in the top 25% at U of Ohio LS might, just might, be just as good as the guy at Boalt. However, looking at the entire pool of applicants, one can safely assume that, in general and without regard to any individual person, the people at the top schools and those with really good grades at a top 50 are more talented than those that fit neither of those criteria. Thus, in the interests of efficiency, and with imperfect information, some people are arb. eliminated. If any of you out there that do not fit the traditional hiring criteria would like the system to change, please suggest an alternative to the current system. The key is costs and efficiency. Is there a better way to do things?

If you have a bad day while taking the LSAT, you can always cancel your score. There is no excuse for a bad LSAT score. Similarly, if you don't do well on the SAT, don't expect to get into a great undergraduate institution.

You are all filthy paycheck slaves.

6:52--

I didn't misspell anything (although you misspelled "misspell"). If you bothered to look at the post I referenced, you would have seen I was taking a shot at that poster's distorted sense of what is good for the profession. "I mean, Duh!"

-4:27