• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Law School is a sham

Right. In today's world lawyers are, generally speaking, pretty fungible within their practice area once you get past the ambulance chasers. If one of your litigation associates or deal attorneys left, would you have much trouble replacing him/her within a few weeks? Which to me is why the self-sufficiency is so important as a measure of success.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
In my #anecdotal experience, some law school staff/profs were super successful lawyers who made obscene bank in private practice and then went into academia because they didn't need any more money and liked to showcase their success to students, but most were people who couldn't get a job anywhere else so were like fuck it, maybe somebody will pay me to teach. I don't know anybody near the top of their law school class with legit job prospects who decides to forego those prospects to go on staff with a law school.
Click to expand...

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Okay, I think where we differ is the definition of practicing law. The people you are describing are good employees, no different from employees at any other major corporation, but to me that differs from the practice of law. To me, a big part of the practice of law is the professional self-sufficiency. The ability, if my firm broke up tomorrow, to be able to open up my own office on Monday and do fine. That doesn't mean the ability to handle everything from a capital murder trial to debt securitization, but to be well-rounded enough and/or respected in your specialty enough where you do not have to depend on someone else to help earn your paycheck for you.
Click to expand...

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Right. In today's world lawyers are, generally speaking, pretty fungible within their practice area once you get past the ambulance chasers. If one of your litigation associates or deal attorneys left, would you have much trouble replacing him/her within a few weeks? Which to me is why the self-sufficiency is so important as a measure of success.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to track how the argument has changed over the past day.

And don't get me wrong- being able to create your own book of business is a great skill. It is most likely the best way to be consistently successful as a lawyer. But it is not the only way. And suggesting that lawyers who don't develop business are people "who couldn't get a job anywhere else" is horseshit.
 
I just read the entire past page and a half. I think you guys are all talking past each other. You can be a success anywhere, but particularly in BigLaw where many of the clients are institutional clients, without being an "originator." Hell, you can make 7 figures doing nothing but supervising a bunch of junior partners and associates on work that you didn't originate. I see a person every single day in my office that has probably done zero hours of business development in the past decade and could light cigars with $100 bills every day if he wanted to. What's more, he doesn't want to be on the road 200 days a year visiting clients and doing all the shit that the head of his practice group does. Success looks different to different people. Practicing law, making a shit ton of money, and going home every night is exactly what he wants.

But at the same time, it is worth discussing the finders, minders and grinders dynamic, especially since you can't have one without any of the others. A partner originating a $20M book of business isn't doing that without an entire team consisting of a group of lawyers (mid-level partners) supervising the work and a larger group (junior partners and associates) actually doing all the work. No different than running a $20M/year business. The further up the chain you are, the harder you are to replace and the better you are paid. Period. They are also absolutely 100% free from the question of "How many hours did you bill last year?" If you have the skills to generate business sufficient to keep a team of 25+ lawyers busy, nobody wants you at a desk billing hours. Your skills are far more valuable out chasing business. That person can also pack up their ball and move somewhere else if the mood strikes them. The absolute freedom to say "fuck you" is what success looks like to that person.

As I said above, a main "lieutenants" that supervises all the work is going to be very successful, well-compensated, and powerful as well, but their success, compensation, and power is always going to be a reflection of the origination. Of course, they are probably also the most skilled at the actual "lawyering" part of practicing law, but that doesn't bring the same freedom and ability to say "fuck you" that being at the top of that pyramid does. If the person that you work for says "Come on, we're moving to the firm across the street" you have to say OK and start packing your boxes.

Law firms that are out trying to hire lateral partners care about 2 questions: What's your book? Is it portable? I have participated in that discussion from both the hiring and the interviewing side. That's all anyone really cares about.

Being able to originate business is probably the least important skill if the question is "Are you skilled at the practice of law?"
Being able to originate business is definitely the most important skill if the question is "Are you a valued commodity within a firm or on the open legal market"

Finally (and anecdotally) it's also worth noting that the best "originator" that I have ever seen, with a book of business the size of the GDP of a small European nation was a mediocre student at what is generally considered a second tier law school. He hates actually doing legal work. If you made him sit at his desk all day and be an actual "lawyer" as opposed to shaking hands and slapping backs, he would suck at it, and would not be a "success."
 
Last edited:
DeaconSig said:
Just wanted to track how the argument has changed over the past day.

And don't get me wrong- being able to create your own book of business is a great skill. It is most likely the best way to be consistently successful as a lawyer. But it is not the only way. And suggesting that lawyers who don't develop business are people "who couldn't get a job anywhere else" is horseshit.
Click to expand...

The argument changed because the discussion changed from where do law school profs come from to how does one measure success as a lawyer. I'm still of the opinion that most law school profs became profs because they could not or did not succeed as actual lawyers, whether they tried their hand at becoming the finder, the minder, or the grinder. It goes back to the old "those who can't do, teach" theory.
 
ibleedgoldandblack said:
I just read the entire past page and a half. I think you guys are all talking past each other. You can be a success anywhere, but particularly in BigLaw where many of the clients are institutional clients, without being an "originator." Hell, you can make 7 figures doing nothing but supervising a bunch of junior partners and associates on work that you didn't originate. I see a person every single day in my office that has probably done zero hours of business development in the past decade and could light cigars with $100 bills every day if he wanted to. What's more, he doesn't want to be on the road 200 days a year visiting clients and doing all the shit that the head of his practice group does. Success looks different to different people. Practicing law, making a shit ton of money, and going home every night is exactly what he wants.

But at the same time, it is worth discussing the finders, minders and grinders dynamic, especially since you can't have one without any of the others. A partner originating a $20M book of business isn't doing that without an entire team consisting of a group of lawyers (mid-level partners) supervising the work and a larger group (junior partners and associates) actually doing all the work. No different than running a $20M/year business. The further up the chain you are, the harder you are to replace and the better you are paid. Period. They are also absolutely 100% free from the question of "How many hours did you bill last year?" If you have the skills to generate business sufficient to keep a team of 25+ lawyers busy, nobody wants you at a desk billing hours. Your skills are far more valuable out chasing business. That person can also pack up their ball and move somewhere else if the mood strikes them. The absolute freedom to say "fuck you" is what success looks like to that person.

As I said above, a main "lieutenants" that supervises all the work is going to be very successful, well-compensated, and powerful as well, but their success, compensation, and power is always going to be a reflection of the origination. Of course, they are probably also the most skilled at the actual "lawyering" part of practicing law, but that doesn't bring the same freedom and ability to say "fuck you" that being at the top of that pyramid does. If the person that you work for says "Come on, we're moving to the firm across the street" you have to say OK and start packing your boxes.

Law firms that are out trying to hire lateral partners care about 2 questions: What's your book? Is it portable? I have participated in that discussion from both the hiring and the interviewing side. That's all anyone really cares about.

Being able to originate business is probably the least important skill if the question is "Are you skilled at the practice of law?"
Being able to originate business is definitely the most important skill if the question is "Are you a valued commodity within a firm or on the open legal market"

Finally (and anecdotally) it's also worth noting that the best "originator" that I have ever seen, with a book of business the size of the GDP of a small European nation was a mediocre student at what is generally considered a second tier law school. He hates actually doing legal work. If you made him sit at his desk all day and be an actual "lawyer" as opposed to shaking hands and slapping backs, he would suck at it, and would not be a "success."
Click to expand...

Bingo - you just summarized the entire industry of public accounting too.
 
Chief Justice of the SCOTUS did both big law and government.

Justice Scalia initially spent time in private practice, did about 10 years teaching between stints at government positions before getting on the Judicial track.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg taught from 1963 to 1980 at two different law schools before getting her first judiciary appointment.
 
Fellow lawyers, I am getting call after call from fucking Avvo about updating my online lawyer profile. Are you guys being bugged about this too?
 
Say Hey Deac said:
Fellow lawyers, I am getting call after call from fucking Avvo about updating my online lawyer profile. Are you guys being bugged about this too?
Click to expand...

No, but I have received several calls from attorneys asking me if I can mediate their case because apparently avvo says I mediate.
 
Say Hey Deac said:
Fellow lawyers, I am getting call after call from fucking Avvo about updating my online lawyer profile. Are you guys being bugged about this too?
Click to expand...

I think once, but I basically hung up on him. Cold calls are the worst. I received a call once from a guy in China (that is what he said) who wanted to talk about our IT operations and was coming to town. The Lexis guys can be obnoxious too.

WFfb115 said:
No, but I have received several calls from attorneys asking me if I can mediate their case because apparently avvo says I mediate.
Click to expand...

This is funny to me. You should do it for a little side hustle.
 
Say Hey Deac said:
Fellow lawyers, I am getting call after call from fucking Avvo about updating my online lawyer profile. Are you guys being bugged about this too?
Click to expand...

I get emails every few days from them. I have no intention of responding.
 
Deacon923 said:
Yeah my LRW prof at wake was unemployable.
Click to expand...

We had a bunch of adjunct professors who were either experienced associates who went to the law school or partners at firms in Boston teach all the LRW classes at my school. Mine was a partner at a mid-sized firm in Boston who quit that gig to go get an MFA in creative writing and write young teen books. So I don't know how that makes me feel about what I learned about research and writing from her but so far so good it seems.
 
5e499ba0c4ee0132d929005056a9545d
 
The real issue is that too many people with shitty grades and LSAT scores still have this idea that they want to be lawyers and there is a host of TTT schools who will take anyone with a pulse and a check/loan that let them in. Of course having that TTT school on their resume does nothing to help them in the job search where they are competing against people who went to much better schools and they end up without a job.

This is an issue, but I think culpability lies with both the crappy schools and the people who are dumb enough to attend them
 
Last edited:
Isn't that what like half this thread is about ? If not more ?

Good synopsis though.
 
Probably is - I haven't read the whole thread. Was just responding to that NYT article
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top