Ask a law student questions about things he's not qualified or interested to answer

Do law students in other countries have the same reputation as in Germany ?
Over here the stereotype goes that they are selfish, competitive pricks who are more likely to sabotage than help each other. They're seen as the kind of people who will rip out pages from books they borrow in the library just to have an advantage over other law students.

Yeah, and no. The reputation is there, but I haven't found it to be true. People help each other all the time (the whole "you should discuss this case in groups, but don't write even remotely similar things about it!" is a bit odd). Unlike other degrees, everyone wants to actually do well (though some hide behind a "I'm just aiming to scrape a pass" facade), so it's more competitive in that sense, but that doesn't mean people sabotage each other.

I can understand it might be different in a hyper-competitive market (the market here is competitive, and there are too many graduates, but it's not nearly the same as what ace is saying about the US), or a school full of graduates who have seen too many winters (or jobless summers), but then perhaps that's one of the problems with populating law schools with graduates, whose cynic glands are well matured.
 
-I graduated in 2008
-I went to what you would likely call a "craptastic" law school based on your posts thus far
-I still owe a lot on my student loans
-I have a great job that I love and I don't work insane hours
Icing on the cake:
-I grade the California Bar Exam as a part time gig on the side, not without a sense of irony that I hold the fate of the "T1" law students that constantly insult students of non-elite schools in my hands. (Said insults always occurring safely behind the anonymity of online posts on blogs like ATL and their ilk.)


Yes, employment statistics are gamed. By every tier of law school. I am not defending law school (I am not attacking it either), I am attacking the over-generalization that going to law school is a universally bad idea simply because your chances at success might not be as grand as some sell it to be. Yes, it is not a good idea if you are you just want to go back to school and you think a fancy looking degree is simply a meal ticket. I don't think that is a deficiency in thinking and character limited to prospective law school students however. That is just generally stupid. Do you just want to go to school and rely on academic credentials forever to cruise for the rest of your life making some money without much effort? Don't go to law school.

All too often this sort of "woe is me" stuff is simply a cover to make the law student who now lacks a job feel more secure that their current situation is not entirely their fault, when really, yes it is almost entirely your fault. I saw this stuff regurgitated on all of these law student websites and it comes off as whiny and sort of pathetic, to be honest. Suck it up, you made a decision. Deal with it.

People are trying to be lawyers and they are complaining about things they could have figured out had they thought critically and read the fine print. Sorry, not buying it. And for every person that is steered away from law school for good reason, the danger is you're still also steering away people who would genuinely be good at it and be passionate about their practice and who would be a genuinely positive addition to the profession. Which is why the question "do you want to be a lawyer" is the only question that really matters.

So you lucked out and beat the odds, well done. It doesn't change facts on the ground. I know people who graduated in 2008 who are still unemployed. Lots of them in fact. Graduating in 2008 was a disaster for thousands of people. Also I probably haven't said anything bad about your school unless it's Golden Gate or UC Irvine. I tend to keep my badmouthing regional (I'm looking at you Brooklyn Law and St. John).

You're far too forgiving of the egregious failures of the industry in regulating the profession to keep it elite. What we're seeing right now is nothing less than a minimum wageification of the legal profession. Lawyers are being turned into McDonald's workers, hell McDonald's probably pays better. People doing doc review in a basement or working as glorified secretaries for $12/hour with $150,000 in debt and no benefits and no job security. Because of what law schools and the ABA has done. You think we should just throw the doors open and hand out law degrees like candy? Yeah I wonder how things would look if we did that for doctors.

There was a time in the past when going to law school and other professional schools guaranteed you a respectable career and middle-class to upper middle-class lifestyle. Now with the degradation of the legal profession they're having lawyers from countries like India doing due diligence for cases in the US for a fraction of the salary of a US lawyer because apparently even $15 an hour is too much to pay someone for doc review. And the ABA does nothing to protect the industry. Even you admit that the market is grievously over-saturated. Why is it so disgraceful that someone should get an education to further their career? You expect everyone to sit around doing public interest law?

This isn't me whining and moaning this is me stating facts. The Third Tier Toilets need to be shut down. All of them. They're shamefully taking advantage of their students. Close every law school that appears in this blog and start fining schools that are misrepresenting employment numbers that that will be an incredibly useful first step to making law a modicum of what it was. (http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/) (warning lots of pictures of feces and toilets)


In the end, law school should be viewed PRIMARILY as a financial decision. If you hear “law professors” tell you that you shouldn’t be so focused on money, ask those pigs how much they make for their minimal “work.” Then, point out the tuition rate to the parasites. For $ome rea$on, these academic sociopaths demand to be paid well - but expect YOU, the student, to go into massive debt with no expectation of a return on your “investment.” Again, you are on the hook for those loans. Significant student debt will hamper your ability to start a family or purchase a home. The law school swine are clearly not looking out for your interests. You need to make the best economic choice, for yourself.
 
But basically the gist of your argument is that you've made a terrible life decision, isn't it? And although there might be other factors (or schools) exacerbating the predicament you find yourself in, they didn't control your decision?
 
Actually I've probably made an alright life decision overall all considering. It's other people who have made terrible life decisions. I feel bad for them and I'd like to see the industry properly regulated so it stops going to hell.
 
You seem to be suggesting through some of what you are saying, though, that attending law school is an objectively horrible choice for anyone to make. Would it be better to moderate to "attending law school is something you should think carefully about, and is a good decision for some people, but bad for many", rather than sticking with "woe is me" (as illram identifies)?
 
Did you do Mock Trial in college? Our attorney coaches said it was very helpful when doing evidence in law school and coaching helpful as an attorney as it keeps you familar with (a very slightly modified version of) the Federal Rules of Evidence.
 
Did you do Mock Trial in college? Our attorney coaches said it was very helpful when doing evidence in law school and coaching helpful as an attorney as it keeps you familar with (a very slightly modified version of) the Federal Rules of Evidence.

God no. I have no desire to be a trial lawyer. Some people do and if so I encourage to do that and Moot Court. I know some people swear by Moot Court and some of the Moot Court competitions are fairly prestigious. And there's Jessup and things like that.

I can't abide public speaking. My required oral argument was a disaster. I stumbled and I was all over the place. After I was speaking one of the judges told me that he though I was being sarcastic to my opponent. Apparently when I'm nervous I sound arrogant. Go figure. Give me some motions to file and a brief to write and I'll be content.
 
Here's my question:

Do you think an LLM or other post-JD law degree is useful, helpful, or necessary for practice?

Also: here's a visual representation for the law school experience.


Follow up question: How do I explain to potential employers that my law school just grades low and that, in fact, my 2.8 GPA puts me in the top 20% of my class?
 
Here's my question:

Do you think an LLM or other post-JD law degree is useful, helpful, or necessary for practice?

Also: here's a visual representation for the law school experience.

Follow up question: How do I explain to potential employers that my law school just grades low and that, in fact, my 2.8 GPA puts me in the top 20% of my class?

An LLM in tax law yes.

On your resume write your ranking in addition to your GPA. I would also make mention of it in your cover letter and at the interview. They'll inevitable ask you, "Top 20%? How's that?" and you can explain. What law school is this? I've never heard of that. Your curve must be BRUTAL. But hey Northwestern kids can explain how they don't get grades or rankings so I think you'll be fine.

http://wheninlawschool.tumblr.com/post/40187783819/throwback-thursday-after-incessantly-checking-for

Love it.

I'm broadly in software development, I don't see how opposing cartels makes me an imbecile.

So you are trolling.
 
So you are trolling.

It's not trolling if I genuinely hold these positions.

Follow up question: How do I explain to potential employers that my law school just grades low and that, in fact, my 2.8 GPA puts me in the top 20% of my class?

You don't, because nobody in the real world cares about your grades.
 
It's not trolling if I genuinely hold these positions.



You don't, because nobody in the real world cares about your grades.

That’s not quite the case in law school, where top firms typically scour the country for high G.P.A.’s. “Some law firms just won’t look at candidates who have below a certain G.P.A., irrespective of what school they come from,” says Sarah Zearfoss, senior assistant dean for admissions and career planning at the University of Michigan Law School. “There are, somewhat astonishingly, law firms that will continue to look at your grades till the day you die.” While Michigan requires only a 2.0 G.P.A. to pass, she says, it’s unlikely that student would land a job with any well-regarded law firm.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/education/edlife/do-grades-matter.html?_r=0
Grades are important to many law firms when making hiring decisions. However, the weight that they carry in these decisions most often depends on the particular firm involved and whether you are (A) a junior attorney or law student, (B) a mid-level to senior associate, or (C) a partner. At each stage of your career, the importance of your law school grades will diminish, and your work experience will take precedence in hiring decisions.

When you are considering a lateral move, there are certain firms that will never look at you unless you have certain grades. The most prestigious firms-such as Latham & Watkins, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, and Munger Tolles & Olsen, among others-will almost never hire you, or even interview you, unless your academic performance falls within a certain cutoff set by the firm, regardless of what stage you are in your career.

However, it is also worth noting that many prestigious firms are often willing to look at individuals who are stellar performers from schools that are not in the top 10 or even the top 25. The most prestigious firms are looking for excellence, and excellence in their minds begins the second you receive your first grades in law school, whether it is a first-, second-, or third-tier law school. Either you have it or you do not.

There are many reasons that several top firms are so strict about grades. The main reason is because it provides their clients assurances that the best lawyers possible are doing the work. People also talk about these firms and how difficult they are to get into. These firms can afford to be so selective because they are places where many want to work. If you want to move into the very highest rungs of law firm practice (which is defined by prestige), your grades will continue to be important throughout your career.

The Importance of Grades for Junior Attorneys and Law Students
As any attorney who has ever participated in on-campus recruiting is no doubt aware, grades are an extremely important criterion that firms use in the hiring of junior attorneys. Grades are far more important for law students than junior attorneys. Indeed, at no other point in your career will your grades be more important than when you are looking for work just out of law school.

Law Students
One of the main reasons that grades are emphasized so much for law students is that firms have very little else to go on when they are making hiring decisions. Firms can look at your college and your performance there. Firms can look at what activities you participated in during law school. Firms can also judge how much they like you. Nevertheless, in terms of judging how serious you are about law school and how much aptitude you show for the practice of law, grades are generally the most important standard that firms use in the hiring of law students.

In many respects, this is somewhat understandable, and there is support for firms' taking law students' grades so seriously. For example, several studies have been done that have shown that your LSAT score-and not undergraduate grade point average-is the best predictor of your academic performance in your first year of law school. Similarly, there have been studies done that show that your performance in your first year of law school (and not during your second and third years) is the best predictor of whether you will pass your state's bar exam on the first attempt.

The largest and most prestigious firms typically have the most stringent grade cutoffs for law students. In addition, the firms that do on-campus recruiting at your law school also tend to place a great deal of emphasis on grades due to the fact that they can compare the transcripts of many students at one time. Many large national firms will only consider graduates in the top 5% from some national law schools, yet they will consider the upper 50% in the hiring of law students from the very top national law schools. The importance of your grades will generally increase as you go down the law school ranking ladder. For example, if you attended Yale Law School, your grades will be much less important to most law firms than they would be if you attended a fourth-tier law school.

Nevertheless, it is important to note that law students from most law schools can find positions in most cases, regardless of their grades. If you are interviewing with firms that typically do not do a lot of on-campus recruiting at your school, the odds are that grades will be emphasized less than they otherwise might be. In addition, many smaller firms may emphasize grades a great deal less than top national law firms due to the fact that they may be more than happy to get a student from your school. Finally, there are certain specialties (such as patent law) where your academic performance in law school may be emphasized even less than your undergraduate performance by some firms.

As recruiters, we have been amazed by the fact that grades are not always emphasized as much as some attorneys might think. We have seen attorneys from fourth-tier law schools at the bottom of their classes get positions during law school with top national law firms, for example. In general, there is a certain predictability as to what kind of firm law students will end up at based on their grades. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to this rule, and we continue to see them on an ongoing basis. The fact that the exceptions occur with some regularity should clearly demonstrate the fact that there are forces at work beyond grades in the hiring decisions of many firms.

Junior Associates
Associates with one to three years of experience that are considering a lateral move are typically worried about their academic performance and what effect it might have on their ability to move. The reason associates worry about this so much is due to the fact that they have been so recently conditioned about the importance of grades during law school. As you progress in your career, grades recede in importance. Many attorneys are able to move as junior associates to firms they might not have been able to get jobs with while they were in law school.

The largest explanation for why grades will recede in importance when you have one to three years of experience is due to the law of supply and demand. If you think about it, the law of supply and demand is something that is important throughout your legal career. As a law student, you competed with many associates who are distinguishable based on not much more than the law school they attended and how well they did there. The best jobs generally go to the best students from the best schools. As a practicing attorney moving laterally, the best jobs generally go to the attorneys who are most in demand. In this case, more often than not, it means the attorneys from the best firms, with the level of experience and the demonstrated expertise that the firms need. As set forth below, due to the law of supply and demand, as a lateral attorney seeking to move, you will be competing with fewer attorneys for the same positions, and firms will not be able to be as selective in terms of your grades:

First, when you are one to three years out of law school, you have presumably begun to specialize in some branch of law. The more arcane that branch of law is, the fewer attorneys you will be competing with for your position. Accordingly, firms desiring someone with your skills will be more likely to overlook a less-than-stellar academic performance to get your experience. As you are no doubt aware, firms are forced to write off a great deal of an attorney's time during his/her first year of practice because an attorney is not very productive in his/her first year. As you get more skills and experience, your value to firms increases because they do not have to write off as much of your time. The value of this training increases exponentially depending on how few attorneys practice in the same branch of law as you do.

Second, many attorneys leave the practice of law entirely during their first three years. Accordingly, those that continue to practice law are competing with fewer people for the same positions. Because there are fewer people to compete with, firms do not feel the need to be as selective with which attorneys they are willing to hire, especially with respect to law school grades.

Third, you will be benefited by the fact that you have proven that you are dedicated to the geographical location you are in. The benefit of being part of the legal community and having stability in the region is something that is very important to law firms.

Fourth, the supply and demand of attorneys is also affected by the fact that many attorneys disqualify themselves from big-firm practice very early in their careers by accepting jobs with firms that are not conducive to moving laterally to a grade-conscious firm at a later date. For example, many attorneys accept positions with insurance defense firms or smaller unknown firms that do unsophisticated work. While there is nothing wrong with this decision, the fact of the matter is that most firms that care about grades want to hire attorneys they perceive as having the training it takes to practice law in a big-firm environment. Because the substantial majority of law graduates go to firms that grade-conscious firms perceive as not providing a high level of training, the fact of the matter is that most grade-conscious firms cannot afford to be overly grade-conscious when hiring laterals. In fact, the quality of the firm you are coming from is usually far more important than your grades when you are moving as a lateral with one to three years of experience.

If there was ever a better illustration of the points discussed above in action, it is the hiring of corporate attorneys on both coasts in 1998 through most of 2000, which took place at a dizzying pace. Many of the most prestigious national law firms were hiring corporate attorneys out of small law firms without ever seeing so much as a transcript. This pattern emerged because the firms had more work than they could handle. While most of the best-known names in the legal profession were inflexible with lowering their standards, a great many firms did budge on their standards and hired everyone they could get. In this circumstance, the importance of grades virtually vanished.

None of this is to say that grades ever completely become irrelevant. If you think about the law of supply and demand, you will quickly realize that it can also make grades important later in your career. In the example above, there was a tremendous demand for corporate associates on both coasts for a period of three years. By 2002, this trend had reversed itself. With numerous corporate attorneys from top national law firms competing for the same positions, grades again became a determining factor in hiring decisions.

A Mid-level to Senior Associate
In the mid-level to senior associate realm, the same prejudices that the largest firms have about grades are still present, and they remain generally quite interested in your grades. Nevertheless, as recruiters, we have noticed a greater willingness of firms to look the other way or not take grades as seriously as they would for law students when dealing with someone with substantial experience.

The Mid-level Associate
Regarding a mid-level associate, firms are generally most concerned about your legal skills and the potential you show. If you are coming from a firm with some stature, then law firms will assume you have the training to do the work that they need done. Mid-level associates are typically quite profitable for firms because they can efficiently do the work that firms like to bill at lower rates in order to appease clients. When considering a mid-level associate, most firms will look at your grades, but most firms' largest concern will be with your ability to do the work and the potential you show for growth within the firm. The same illustrations outlined above regarding (1) your specialization, (2) the number of attorneys still practicing, (3) your geographic commitment, and (4) choice of firms that have given you high-level training become even more important for mid-level associates than they are for junior associates.

The Senior Associate
After several years of practice, the same four factors identified above become increasingly important in firms' evaluations of your relative strengths. In addition, firms become more concerned with your potential to make partner and your business-generation abilities. The elevation of these criteria into a firm's evaluation of you assumes an importance that far outweighs concerns about grades with probably 99% of all American law firms.

The Partner
At the partner level, grades have almost no importance. Concerns about your business-generation abilities and other factors make almost all other factors practically irrelevant. In fact, we would estimate that in 7 out of 10 partner placements we make, the firms hire our candidates without ever requesting to see their grades. There are, of course, exceptions to this, as some very prestigious national firms will continue considering your grades to be of paramount importance throughout your career. On some occasions, we have seen partners who were national figures in their practice areas with multi-million-dollar books of business not get interviews because of their law school grades. However, this occurs very infrequently, as there are not many firms that are not going to accept a potential rainmaker into their firms just because he/she got a C in Evidence 25 years ago.

Conclusions
By far, grades are most important for law students. As law school grades are the only measure of what you have done relating to the legal field before you enter a firm, there really is no other way for a firm to judge your abilities at this level. Once you have reached a point in your career where you have gained meaningful work experience, they become less important and continually decrease in significance the longer you practice. While law school is three short years, your legal career can span more than 30 years. Accordingly, it goes without saying that your law school performance is by no means the most important indicator of the success you will have in the practice of law. Nevertheless, there are some American law firms where your grades will prevent you from getting a position throughout your career. However, with all the opportunities available in the market, one's law school grades 10, 5, or even 1 year after law school are not something that will hold you back with most firms if you have managed other aspects of your career correctly.
http://www.bcgsearch.com/article/60605/Law-School-grades-and-your-career/
 
You don't, because nobody in the real world cares about your grades.

I don't know if truisms about the real world generally apply to the legal industry.
--
Figured I'd ask this publicly, in case anyone else wants to weigh in:

What should I consider when transferring to another law school after my first year? How do near top schools like BU and BC, and top schools like Harvard, weigh transfer applicants?
 
Duplicate post.
 
So you lucked out and beat the odds, well done. It doesn't change facts on the ground. I know people who graduated in 2008 who are still unemployed. Lots of them in fact. Graduating in 2008 was a disaster for thousands of people. Also I probably haven't said anything bad about your school unless it's Golden Gate or UC Irvine. I tend to keep my badmouthing regional (I'm looking at you Brooklyn Law and St. John).

I went to GGU. I did it with my eyes wide open and I didn't luck out, I hussled. And UC Irvine? Really?

Couple things:
1) No one is forcing people to take bad jobs with no future. That is the fault of the person taking that job. Blaming the ABA and law schools is simply failing to take responsibility for their own issues. If your only option is doing horrible work for $12 an hour, open up your own shop. You're a lawyer, you don't need a job. You need a client.

2) Hate to break it to you but being a lawyer in and of itself is not "elite." There are a lot of lawyers out there, it is not special. TV and media have made it out to be something glamorous or prestigious--but by and large, 99% of the profession isn't. Unfortunately this leads a lot of deluded people to law school thinking it is their ticket to some sort of prestigious identity that they just have to go to pass some exams to get. This is a serious mistake.

3) You mention a time when a job was "guaranteed." That was never the case. Nothing in life is guaranteed. You want to go to law school and have an awesome high paying job handed to you? Sorry that's not how it works. I am really, really glad that is not how it works either, since lawyers are supposed to help real clients with their issues, many of which are life changing, and I wouldn't want someone just going through the motions for the paycheck handling anything remotely important. If I see this attitude when I interview people, they are not getting hired.

4) If the job is so menial that a guy in India can do it, what's the problem? Why should I have my client pay me $300 an hour to do something I can have someone in Pakistan do for a fraction of that price? You want an elite profession but you want to sit in a basement plugging numbers into a spreadsheet for hours?

5) There is a market for high tier, mid tier, and low tier law schools. That is the reality. Harvard and GGU teach the same material. We use the same textbooks. We take the same bar exam. Yes, the top 1% of law firms are big on what law school you went you. So are many Federal government positions. Most people in the profession agree, however, that what law school you went to is a very poor indicator of the quality of your lawyering. Studies bear this out. (Some of the comments are also good.) Law school prestige is a baked in part of our industry that has more to do with signaling and psychology than actual facts. The few sorry souls like the angrily unemployed person who writes "thirdtiertoilet" apparently wanted a biglaw job handed to them merely for finishing school, but I really cannot blame anyone other than them for failing to adequately come to terms with the reality of their situation.

6) Yes, there are a ton of lawyers out there. Yes, law schools are making quite a mint churning them out. Yes, law schools should be ashamed of gaming the statistics for jobs after school. (Why aren't you blaming the companies making the law school loans? Or the law school rankings that make it seem like there is a huge difference between a school ranked 10th and a school ranked 22nd?) But none of these things can be completely blamed for not getting a job. That is simply rationalizing failure.
 
Back
Top Bottom