# Yesterday's WSJ re law schools



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB119040786780835602.html

Basically this article completely underlines why one should be extremely cautious before going to law school.

Simply put there aren't enough jobs to pay down the big debt!!!!

"He's making less money than at his last job and has thought about moving back to his parents' house. "I didn't think three years out I'd be uninsured, thinking it's a great day when a crackhead brings me $500."


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

JRR said:


> https://online.wsj.com/article/SB119040786780835602.html
> 
> Basically this article completely underlines why one should be extremely cautious before going to law school.
> 
> ...


In St. Louis, they are hiring 1st year law school students.

_"The demand is greater than the supply," said Jennifer Sloop, a recruiting and professional development manager at 
St. Louis-based Bryan Cave LLP._


----------



## red96 (Jun 26, 2007)

I teach a career planning course to undergraduate students and I shared that article with them prior to class yesterday. For several of them, it was a pretty jaw-dropping read. Like careers in investment banking, legal careers have the potential for high amounts of prestige and income - but the key word here is POTENTIAL! For most people, this career will lead to lower than expected salaries and paying back those loans is going to get pretty tricky...


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Tuition growth at law schools has almost tripled the rate of inflation over the past 20 years


Might that be the result of a massive federal subsidy program? Tuition rates have risen to be almost precisely the amount that a student can qualify for. Every time the government adjusts the qualifying ceiling, "private" law schools adjust their tuitions by about the same amount.

So, by purporting to make law school more affordable, the government ends up inflating the price by triple the rate that it is inflating everything else.

A similar effect can be seen in mortgages and the price of a house.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> In St. Louis, they are hiring 1st year law school students.
> 
> _"The demand is greater than the supply," said Jennifer Sloop, a recruiting and professional development manager at
> St. Louis-based Bryan Cave LLP._


That's the Big Law market. Very different than what the article is talking about. Actually reinforces what the article says. If you are attending an elite school you will have plenty of job offers. If you attend lesser schools you won't.

If Bryan Cave needs attorneys in St. Louis and can't get interest from Ivy League law students, perhaps it should hire more from St. Louis University, or go deep into the Wash U class. Or even the horrors, Missouri or SIU students...

Instead, the myopic firms do this:

"The National Association for Law Placement highlighted Missouri law firms as particularly aggressive at taking on first-year law students as summer associates. The larger St. Louis firms said the first-year students they hire as summer associates often come from prestigious schools outside the area, like Harvard, Stanford and Michigan."

Pity the poor fool who isn't in the the 10% at SLU...


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Bullock's plight is a bit the result of his own poor decisions. I worked in legal HR and am now a 1L myself. First, yes, if you didn't go to a top 100 school you should have become a paralegal. Bullock did go to a school ranked 70th, but he was "top third" (which always means not in the top 1/4) and he went to a second tier school in a competitive market. If you're going to go to a second tier school, make sure you aren't competing with every top school in the nation by being near NYC.

Also, that article does bring up doc review and says "So Mr. Altmann became a contract attorney, reviewing electronic documents for big firms for around $20 to $30 an hour, and hasn't been able to find higher-paying work since." I suppose that's an attempt to make doc review look bad. Those rates are for people who couldn't pass the bar. Going rate in DC was $35, and it went up by a lot for foreign language doc review ($40-55/hr). Then don't forget than 70 hour weeks are quite common and you get 1.5x for OT. Let's be conservative and say 60hr/wk, 45wk/yr at $35. That's $110,250. Sure it's no benefits, but it's hardly chump change.


----------



## Mr. H (Aug 27, 2007)

Laxplayer said:


> In St. Louis, they are hiring 1st year law school students.
> 
> _"The demand is greater than the supply," said Jennifer Sloop, a recruiting and professional development manager at _
> _St. Louis-based Bryan Cave LLP._


While it is true that most of the large, local firms are in fact dipping into the 1L pool, that is not due to the demand for attorneys exceeding the supply. It is due to the lack of interest in St. Louis among students of Top 10 law schools. Accordingly, the big firms are taking the unconventional step of offering summer associate positions to a class of students often perceived as lacking adequate preparation for such a position in other markets. Law students at the premier schools who wouldn't even show up on the radar screen of recruiters in New York, Chicago or LA are being wooed by the STL firms and apparently there are students willing to take a sure thing in St. Louis now over the chance of landing something in one of the larger markets later. In my experience, St. Louis is no different than any other decent to large sized market in the US when it comes to the job landscape.


----------



## Cottonmather0 (Sep 20, 2007)

I read that article in the paper on Monday and must say it is legit. 

Mrs Cottonmather is an attorney who actually had the sense to get a chemical engineering degree as an undegrad and then went to law school and now works for one of the big firms here in Houston doing patent law. In other words, she didn't major in literature or history or government with the express goal of going to law school someday, which I think is a big problem that isn't necessarily mentioned in the article. 

BUT... even though my wife is one of those "lucky" graduates making the big bucks, she talks constantly about wanting to quit her job and stay home with the kids fulltime... I think the only thing that is stopping her is the number of her classmates from law school who are still looking for their first "real" job five years after graduating, which I know from personal experience is a very large number and makes me very grateful not to be among their ranks.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Cottonmather0 said:


> I read that article in the paper on Monday and must say it is legit.
> 
> Mrs Cottonmather is an attorney who actually had the sense to get a chemical engineering degree as an undegrad and then went to law school and now works for one of the big firms here in Houston doing patent law. In other words, she didn't major in literature or history or government with the express goal of going to law school someday, which I think is a big problem that isn't necessarily mentioned in the article.
> 
> BUT... even though my wife is one of those "lucky" graduates making the big bucks, she talks constantly about wanting to quit her job and stay home with the kids fulltime... I think the only thing that is stopping her is the number of her classmates from law school who are still looking for their first "real" job five years after graduating, which I know from personal experience is a very large number and makes me very grateful not to be among their ranks.


Great post Cottonmather. Welcome to the forum. You're definitely married to a keeper.


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

I have been reading this thread and wondering what goes through a first year law student's head to show up for a conference to listen to 3 US and 3 Canadian supreme court justices address the class like this and then sits more or less, front and center??

https://imageshack.us


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

zegnamtl said:


> I have been reading this thread and wondering what goes through a first year law student's head to show up for a conference to listen to 3 US and 3 Canadian supreme court justices address the class like this and then sits more or less, front and center??
> 
> https://imageshack.us


He's just trying to show the quality of his briefs?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

His shirt says he's a "stud muffin." I guess special rules of society apply to stud muffins.


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Phinn said:


> His shirt says he's a "stud muffin." I guess special rules of society apply to stud muffins.


I guess they do!
About 25 percent of the room was reserved for people from some of the biggest firms in the city, all of whom were well dressed (and 45 plus in age).
Call me an old goat, but I would have thought the students could have made a better effort.

Off the subject of the OP a touch, apologizes.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

zegnamtl said:


> I guess they do!
> About 25 percent of the room was reserved for people from some of the biggest firms in the city, all of whom were well dressed (and 45 plus in age).
> Call me an old goat, but I would have thought the students could have made a better effort.
> 
> Off the subject of the OP a touch, apologizes.


You're an old goat at a conference at a law school...you probably have friends who work in the upper levels of US law firms, eh? I go to class in a dress shirt, sport coat, wool slacks, and leather soled shoes. For such an event I'd put on a tie though I may not go all the way to a suit. Tell your friends where to look for a respectable 1L summer associate :icon_smile_big:


----------



## VC2000 (Feb 10, 2006)

I think things are probably going to get worse before they get better for the lower end. There is a lot of venture capital money going into outsourcing back office legal firms doing the type of work like reviewing contracts in India. The price is well under $20 per hour even after the markup of a third party. 

I have advised people to only go to law school if they have a passion for something they want to specialize in the legal field. Thinking that you are going to come out with general studies and make six figures is unrealistic. However if you have a specialization this might be a different matter. I known lawyers that had moderate academic records from mid tier schools to do very well financially in specialized fields like immigration, health care, and tax.


----------



## retronotmetro (Jun 19, 2004)

Mr. H said:


> While it is true that most of the large, local firms are in fact dipping into the 1L pool, that is not due to the demand for attorneys exceeding the supply. It is due to the lack of interest in St. Louis among students of Top 10 law schools. Accordingly, the big firms are taking the unconventional step of offering summer associate positions to a class of students often perceived as lacking adequate preparation for such a position in other markets. Law students at the premier schools who wouldn't even show up on the radar screen of recruiters in New York, Chicago or LA are being wooed by the STL firms and apparently there are students willing to take a sure thing in St. Louis now over the chance of landing something in one of the larger markets later. In my experience, St. Louis is no different than any other decent to large sized market in the US when it comes to the job landscape.


When I worked at an AmLaw 25 firm in LA, we generally hired 1Ls only when we had an insufficient number of 2Ls to fill the budgeted spots in the summer program. 1Ls were seen more as seat fillers than real prospects, because fewer 1Ls tended to accept permanent associate offers. 1Ls who have never lived in LA will use the summer program as a paid vacation or look-see opportunity, then go to another city for their 2L summer and eventual permanent job.

I think it may be a good move for Biglaw firms in second tier markets to pursue 1Ls and encourage them to work--with eyes wide open--in NY, Chicago, or LA in their second summer. The quality of life (in terms of billable hour expectations and cost of living) can be much better in second tier markets than the majors.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Phinn said:


> Might that be the result of a massive federal subsidy program? Tuition rates have risen to be almost precisely the amount that a student can qualify for. Every time the government adjusts the qualifying ceiling, "private" law schools adjust their tuitions by about the same amount.
> 
> So, by purporting to make law school more affordable, the government ends up inflating the price by triple the rate that it is inflating everything else.
> 
> A similar effect can be seen in mortgages and the price of a house.


While tuition does vary ... the tuition of private law schools is fairly consistent on a national basis. The cost of tuition at ... say ... Stanford vs. Vanderbilt is quite comparable. Moreover, those costs have risen at comparable rates over the years. From this point of view ... you can argue your point.

However, it does not seem to me that the same is true for mortgages and the price of a home. Just look at residential real estate in the towns where these two schools are located. A four bedroom house on an acre in Palo Alto might well cost you over $5,000,000.00 ... when you can find one. But there are dozens of such houses available at any given time in Nashville ... priced at perhaps 10% or less of the one in Palo Alto. And yet there was a time -- not all that many years ago -- when the prices for similar homes in these two locations would have been close to par.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

The tuitions at the various law schools that cater to a national student body are all about the same price. Private law schools that are more local in character tend to be cheaper, since the competition to get into those schools is less intense, and the value of the degree in the job market is lower, so to attract students, they have to compete on price. But, yes, among the national law schools, whose students come from and return to many different cities and states, they are all about the same price. 

The reason they are all about the same price is that they are all paid by the same federal subsidy -- the federal student loan program. It has a borrower ceiling of about $30-35,000 per year. Naturally, these schools raise their prices to match the money that the students can qualify for. It's what Keyensians call "increasing effective demand" -- the number of people who can afford to pay $30,000 per year for 3 years is much smaller than the number of people who can afford to pay it when it is loaned to just about anyone who applies for it. The federally-sponsored loan program, in effect, increases the amount that its customers are willing to pay. 

The same thing happens with houses. Federally-sponsored house-loan programs have made it easier to borrow to buy a house than it otherwise would be. The artificially easy credit means that the prices of the houses get bid up. The price of houses has skyrocketed over the last 30-40 years because of this, for exactly the same reason that the price of law school has -- the existence of a source of (relatively) easy credit that is tied specifically to that product. 

Why is a house in Palo Alto more expensive than Nashville? Incomes are higher in Palo Alto. The amount you can borrow under the federally-sponsored loan program for houses is tied to income. The amount you can borrow under the federally-sponsored loan program for law school is not.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Interesting view Phinn ... and well put. 

However incomes in Palo Alto are no where close to ten times what they are for the comparable profession in Nashville. They aren't even double ... and the cost of real estate isn't the only thing in California costing us more. It's not as if we can put all our additional income into real estate. 

Now, I live in a beautifully built but small home high (no pun intended) in the Berkeley Hills. That's not Beverly ... it's Berkeley ... so we aren't talking swimming pools and movie stars ... here it's mostly hot tubs and liberals ... but there are a few exceptions. But back to the house ... and speaking of the back ... it looks out over San Francisco Bay to the City, Alcatraz, the Golden Gate and Mt. Tam. I have one neighbor who is a Nobel winner (I can assure you it wasn't the peace prize ... as sound travels up the canyon!) ... another is a best selling author ... another, still, is a stage celebrity -- one I've never seen ... be it on the stage or in the neighborhood. It's a darn nice place to live. I certainly have no need or desire to "move up." And that's a good thing ... because I couldn't afford to do it. In fact, were I not to own my house ... I couldn't afford to move down ... well, not the next step or two ... I'd have to go further. 

I have lived here nearly twenty years ... and my place was "expensive" when I bought it. But ... I am all too aware that in today's market, I could not afford this house given my current income ... which is well above average for my profession -- even locally -- and includes significant investment income. I often think of the young first-time buyers in our area ... and I wonder how they manage. 

Now ... my sister who lives in the South -- and whose husband is in the same profession as I -- lives in a near palace on several hundred acres ... recently purchased ... using current income ... and only the income from his profession (investment income is all 401K or tied up in other real estate). The value of his current home is a bit more 2x what it was back when I bought my house. The current value of my home is perhaps 5x or more than the price I paid at purchase. 

My income is indeed significantly more than that of my brother-in-law ... but does not allow for anything close to a comparable home purchase. Humm ... perhaps I'll sell my California house, retire, and move ... South. Then again, I really do like it where I am. 

I do comprehend your point. And I do understand it's about the ability to borrow ... as set by our government. But Law School tuition seems to better track your theory.


----------



## kabert (Feb 6, 2004)

I would encourage anyone considering law school first to work as a paralegal/legal assistant. That way, one can get a good flavor of what it's like to practice law. Of course, the size and type of firm or business make a big difference. Straight out of law school, I worked at a 100-person firm, and everyone would head home by 6:00-6:30pm. After a few years I jumped to a 900-person firm, where far, far more worktime was expected. Much more salary was also in the cards at the larger firm. But, working for 2.5 years as a paralegal before law school helped me shift from a hard-partying college boy to a hard-working paralegal and, then, student.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> However incomes in Palo Alto are no where close to ten times what they are for the comparable profession in Nashville.


The housing market isn't compartmentalized by profession. The higher incomes that the tech people earn makes the houses more expensive for the lowly lawyers that try to live there, too.

I am sure that there are other, uniquely-local features of the Palo Alto housing market of which I am ignorant. I have lived in several cities in several states, each with wildly different issues that directly affect housing, ranging from schools, crime, age and other demographic features, physical land features, building restrictions, roads, etc. I am sure Palo Alto has features of its own, but I don't know what they are.



> I often think of the young first-time buyers in our area ... and I wonder how they manage.


I often think of the young, first-time buyers of today as compared to the young, first time buyers of 30-40 years ago, and I wonder how anyone under 40 can afford a house at all.

You might be perceiving that my explanation makes more sense in the context of increasing law school tuitions because the economics of law school tuitions is simpler than housing. Everyone buys a house, but not everyone goes to law school. The consumers of law school services are, by far, a more homogeneous group, in terms of their economic factors -- their incomes (near zero), assets (near zero), and the features on which they are basing their decisions.

But when it comes to housing, however, the situation is more complex, with everyone preferring slightly different things, in different price ranges, in different places, with the choice of housing being a more long-term decision, and more affected by other, related factors like the local job market, schools, etc.

But the basic phenomenon is definitely a major factor in both areas -- government-sponsored easy credit, tied specifically to that particular expenditure, inflates the prices for those expenditures.


----------



## zarathustra (Aug 24, 2006)

I am in this exact situation. Frankly, i don't have a clue what to do. 

I am at a midsize commercial litigation firm that is going nowhere and making no money. My loans are my largest expenditure @ over 50% of my take home. I have no insurance because I can't afford the monthly premiums at over $200.00 and pay bills. 

I bill over 2200 - 2300 hours a year and have worked hard. The partners i work for even acknowledge I work hard. As a third year associate, I don't how long i can continue to believe my own bs that hard work and determination will pay off. (And for the record I am looking for a new job.)

While hindsight is 20/20, the fact that the law schools are permitted to manipulate their statistics so much for advertising purposes is a bit aggravating.


----------



## anglophile23 (Jan 25, 2007)

As a pre-law student, this has given me alot to think about. Are there any ways to improve the odds if you don't go to a top school? What about specializing?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

anglophile23 said:


> As a pre-law student, this has given me alot to think about. Are there any ways to improve the odds if you don't go to a top school? What about specializing?


The only specializing that I know of that works is if you get into a school that is the best in its specialty but somehow doesn't have the high admission requirements. Lewis & Clark if you want to go into enviro law is the only one that comes to mind. Or go somewhere that's in a market all of its own (like Arkansas...if you're happy living in Arkansas for the rest of your life).


----------



## Phat Ham (Sep 19, 2007)

Here's a sobering statistic for people thinking they'll be making bank with a law degree: "In May 2004, the median annual earnings of all lawyers were $94,930." (). That is not starting salaries for recent graduates, but average salary for all lawyers.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

anglophile23 said:


> As a pre-law student, this has given me alot to think about. Are there any ways to improve the odds if you don't go to a top school? What about specializing?


Get an accounting, engineering degreee in undergrad.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

anglophile23 said:


> As a pre-law student, this has given me alot to think about. Are there any ways to improve the odds if you don't go to a top school? What about specializing?


IMO, stop thinking "pre-law". Think of accomplishing something stand alone in your undergrad vs. thinking of your undergrad as merely a doormat for law school. As JRR said, engineering, accounting, finance, computer science, etc.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/10/03/a-call-out-for-jds-no-bar-passage-required/trackback/


----------



## kabert (Feb 6, 2004)

anglophile23 said:


> As a pre-law student, this has given me alot to think about. Are there any ways to improve the odds if you don't go to a top school? What about specializing?


Well....

Before law school: (i) have a specialized undergrad degree (engineering/accounting/ biology) and/or (ii) have specialized work experience before law school (work for a congressman, 10 years' experience at a computer software company doing marketing, you're an R.N. and you want to practice health law, etc.).

During law school: You know the drill -- get good grades, get on law review, do moot court, work as an intern for a local judge, etc. Also, have meaningful summer jobs during law school. You might also get a dual J.D./MBA -- several schools have such a program.

After law school: Get an LL.M. degree (such as a masters in tax law). Many firms looking for tax associates "strongly prefer" those with a tax LL.M. There are also LL.M. degrees available for fields such as labor law and environmental law.


----------

