Law School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Retired attorney. If one of my kids should become interested in law school, I would generally frame the goal as T14 or bust. (I have no opinion on Georgetown, other than to agree with the PP that if I were advising my child, Georgetown > Vandy.)

So, why do I know plenty of successful lawyers from non T14.
Is this something new?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Retired attorney. If one of my kids should become interested in law school, I would generally frame the goal as T14 or bust. (I have no opinion on Georgetown, other than to agree with the PP that if I were advising my child, Georgetown > Vandy.)

So, why do I know plenty of successful lawyers from non T14.
Is this something new?

But we are discussing getting the firs jobs out of law school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Retired attorney. If one of my kids should become interested in law school, I would generally frame the goal as T14 or bust. (I have no opinion on Georgetown, other than to agree with the PP that if I were advising my child, Georgetown > Vandy.)

So, why do I know plenty of successful lawyers from non T14.
Is this something new?

Me too. I'm a partner at an AmLaw 100 firm with a successful practice and career. Did not go to T14. We hire MANY associates from non T14. Good grades and class ranking are more important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Retired attorney. If one of my kids should become interested in law school, I would generally frame the goal as T14 or bust. (I have no opinion on Georgetown, other than to agree with the PP that if I were advising my child, Georgetown > Vandy.)

So, why do I know plenty of successful lawyers from non T14.
Is this something new?

Me too. I'm a partner at an AmLaw 100 firm with a successful practice and career. Did not go to T14. We hire MANY associates from non T14. Good grades and class ranking are more important.

I’m willing to be good money that someone graduating from Harvard can get hired from your firm with lower grades than someone from Georgetown. And someone from Georgetown can get hired with lower grades than someone from Widener.

Going to a lower ranked law school is riskier because you very much need to finish at the top of your class to get the same job opportunities as someone from a higher ranked school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Retired attorney. If one of my kids should become interested in law school, I would generally frame the goal as T14 or bust. (I have no opinion on Georgetown, other than to agree with the PP that if I were advising my child, Georgetown > Vandy.)

So, why do I know plenty of successful lawyers from non T14.
Is this something new?

Me too. I'm a partner at an AmLaw 100 firm with a successful practice and career. Did not go to T14. We hire MANY associates from non T14. Good grades and class ranking are more important.

I’m willing to be good money that someone graduating from Harvard can get hired from your firm with lower grades than someone from Georgetown. And someone from Georgetown can get hired with lower grades than someone from Widener.

Going to a lower ranked law school is riskier because you very much need to finish at the top of your class to get the same job opportunities as someone from a higher ranked school.

You missed my point. I was responding to the poster who said it is either T14 or nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exlawdean wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child did quite well throughout college and completed an undergraduate degree in political science six years ago.

After working in various jobs that were (mostly) policy related, said child decided to apply to law school, was accepted to a DC area program, and began their first semester last fall.

However, there were some bumps in the road during that first semester…aside from getting acclimated to the “newness” of law school, there was a 7 day absence due to an illness that required hospitalization; difficulty getting help with legal writing assignments from the school; and the unavailability of required medication that was needed for concentration. As a result, the fall semester grades weren’t great and an academic dismissal was issued.

This came as a complete surprise to my child (and to us as well), but I investigated and found out the story we got was indeed accurate. Our child appealed the decision, but the appeal was denied.

Are first semester dismissals typical in law school? I would have thought that academic probation would have been the first step, especially given the handful of challenges that were experienced during the semester.

My husband and I are very upset by this, but our child is devastated. We think it was an extreme measure, but we’re not really sure of how to advise our child to address it, assuming it even should be addressed. The dismissal letter that was provided had a line that read, “we encourage you to reapply for admission.,” but I’m not sure if that was a genuine statement. It seemed strange to dismiss a student from school and encourage them to return all in the same letter.

We think this child is capable of successfully managing and completing law school (our other child is not), and they would like to continue working toward a law degree. Would you be able to offer any suggestions on possible next steps? Would switching to another school be feasible? How do most law students proceed in cases like this?

Thank you for any insight you can offer.

On the facts that you have given, the school's action seems unusual and more than a bit harsh. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that the grades were extremely low. In such a circumstance, when I was dean I likely would have offered up a "reset," a chance to start the first year, again, on a clean slate. Perhaps that is what the quoted language means. If so, the most obvious strategy is to reapply for admission, try to stay healthy, and perform better on the tests next year. I wish you and yours the best.

PP, is your child at the absolute end of the road with the appeal process? If not, I would encourage him/her to get an attorney and keep trying to change the result.

I am the PP/parent of the dismissed 1st semester law student. Thank you to everyone who offered insight and suggestions...they were all very helpful.

A few weeks ago, our child submitted the dismissal appeal and had a hearing with a panel of law professors (or possibly Deans) to explain the circumstances that contributed to the low gpa. Based on the letter received from the school following the hearing, the appeal was denied. However, reapplication (for part-time status) was encouraged, but no timeframe was mentioned. I assume the application would not be considered for the 2023-24 admission cycle, but the letter did not specifically say that. Nor did it specifically say (or imply) that reapplying would guarantee admission.

We are not lawyers, so we don't really know how to advise him...what type of attorney would be able to assist us with this?

You may want to try attorneys with experience in administrative law / due process hearings, attorneys who note experience in education law, especially higher education law, maybe disability law, if applicable. Attorneys who have experience in special education law and IDEA due process hearings, while not directly applicable, may have transferable knowledge b/c they work with IEPs. Maybe attorneys experienced in tenured faculty administrative proceedings would have transferable knowledge. I don't know the circumstances surrounding the dismissal, though.

[Anonymous]

In my view, the goal should be more refined as COA (cost of attendance) is important. Some Top 14 law schools are worth paying full tuition, while others are not. Depends upon how deep into the class biglaw firms are willing to go when hiring from a specific law school.

I would restate the goal as Top 13 law school, or Georgetown with a sizeable scholarship, or any full tuition scholarship at a well respected law school in the geographic region where you plan to live & work after finishing law school.

This is not good advice. There is absolutely no reason to single out Georgetown from the T14.

[Anonymous]

NP. Recognize, folks, that it takes a different type of person to be a good trial lawyer. I’ve practiced for over 20 years, and I have seen graduates of lower-ranked law schools run circles around lawyers from top 20 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent, my 1st question is how hard or is it possible to get scholarships/FA from a top 14 law school? DC is attending college in the fall at a top SLAC and is aspiring to study environmental science, law and public policies. Any advice will be appreciated!

My kid applied in Fall of 2020 while a senior at a non-HYP Ivy with a 4.0 liberal arts double major and 180 LSAT. Ended up going to UChicago with full scholarship plus $20K annual stipend.

Yale: WL (they ended up taking 0 WL students that year, and only 16 students straight out of undergrad)
Harvard: Accepted, meager need-based aid along with the expectation that I pay $30,000/year (which is about in-line with undergrad EFC)
NYU, Michigan: Accepted, didn't get named full-ride scholarship
Columbia, UVA, Penn: Put on "reserve," didn't write optional "Why our school?" essay w initial app, didn't follow-up with letter of continued interest, eventually got WL'd by a couple and literally never received a final decision letter from one. Feels like those might have been yield protection decisions, but I'm well aware that might also be sour grapes on my part!

As noted above, Harvard, Yale and Stanford don't give merit scholarships. The Yale dean has launched an offensive saying that schools who give merit scholarships are just subsidizing rich kids and should focus their financial aid on need-based students. I think that is a very self-serving argument rooted in frustration that pretty much the only reason YLS's yield is 81% instead of 100% is that a handful of admitted students take full-ride offers somewhere else. I can assure you that my kid's merit aid was not subsidizing a rich family!

Actually, people who pay full freight are subsidizing others.

[Anonymous]

I feel like taking years off benefits wealthy, connected applicants. Mommy and daddy can call in favors on internships and shell out for another “prep course.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Exlawdean wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do the T14 look more favorably on elite undergraduate college applicants, all other things (gpa, lsat, extras) being equal?

I am not an expert on this precise question. I know that most chief admissions officers will claim to be looking for the best applicants, regardless of where they come from. But such a statement has little hard content. My guess is that there will be a tendency, other things being equal, to favor applicants from prestigious, selective undergraduate institutions. But this is true for employers, as well. If your child attends, for example, Princeton as an undergraduate and then decides to get a job, they will have an easier time than if they had attended a much less prestigious undergraduate school.

That’s…not how law school admissions work. I am really surprised you don’t know how they work.

Of course that's how law school admissions work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, your thread starting post suggested that prospective law school applicants should shadow lawyers before deciding whether or not to pursue the practice of law. I disagree.

I disagree because most lawyer activity occurs in the head of the attorney and watching a lawyer think, read and write for 9 or 10 hours a day really does not convey what lawyers do in furtherance of their clients' interests.

Shadowing a medical professional--such as a doctor--is quite different as many functions can be appreciated simply by being present & watching.

Continuing:

Arguably there is some career insight to be gained by shadowing a litigator (trial attorney) at a deposition or at a motions hearing or during a trial. But I doubt that many attorneys or law firms want non-lawyer/non-legal related professionals observers at their depositions. With respect to trial matters heard in court, there is no need to shadow as most hearings are open to the public.

Even though I see little value in shadowing an attorney, there is value in speaking to a variety of attorneys during lunch or any other free time to discuss the profession and that attorney's duties within his or her practice.

But watching an attorney think, read, and write for 10 hours a day provides insight that could be communicated in a quick conversation.

NP - I think the value is that someone can see if they want to be the person sitting at a desk for 10 hours a day, doing what looks like thinking. Do they enjoy the emails, the conversations, the meetings, whatever. Or if they go see a differnt kind of lawyer - do they enjoy going to court, and sitting around for two hours until your case is called, then speaking for 15 minutes. Do they like being in an office - do they like doing the sort of thinking a lawyer is doing. The sort of writing they are doing.

I'm an attorney, I've worked in all sorts of law offices, and I've never seen someone "shadow" an attorney. I have had interns and summer associates. I myself was a paralegal after college, and an intern during college.

[Anonymous]

Exlawdean wrote:Hello everyone,

I am a retired professor. I taught at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, at USC Gould School of Law, and at the University of Texas (at Austin) School of Law as a tenured, full-time professor. I was also a full professor at the University of Texas McCombs School of Business and at the California Institute of Technology Division of Humanities and Social Science. For six years I was the Dean of the Gould School at USC. I have a lot of experience.

I have decided to join this conversation as an experiment. I have seen some people ask questions about going to law school. I can answer, or at least give my opinion about, a subset of these questions. For the most part, my postings will reflect my opinion about law school and law practice. However, many of these opinions will have a foundation in published, empirical research. When the research supports (or impeaches) what I post, I will endeavor to tell you about it.

I will start with the most basic and most frequently asked question: Should my child go to law school?

In my opinion the best reason to go to law school is that your child wants to be a lawyer. This answer immediately leads to a second question: How can your child know whether they want to be a lawyer? This question is much harder to answer, in part because there are so many different types of lawyers, and in part because the practice of law will likely change a lot over the next decade or two. On the first point consider the differences between criminal lawyers (prosecutors and defense), business litigators, real estate lawyers, bankruptcy lawyers, divorce and family lawyers, commercial lawyers (helping businesses to make routine deals), merger and acquisition lawyers (helping businesses to make existential deals), government lawyers at every level (federal, state, local), and public interest lawyers. This only scratches the surface. These lawyers often have very different lives, and sometimes different levels of stress and satisfaction. In order for your child to even start to understand whether they want to be a lawyer, they should find a way to follow around different types of lawyers to get a decent understanding of a “day in the life” of different lawyers. And your child should not be trying to shadow lawyers when they are 10 years old. Your child should be at least 18 years old before they try engaging in such an exercise. The optimal time to follow lawyers and ask questions is probably when your child is a junior in college. The worst thing is to go to law school without ever having engaged in the process of gathering this information.

What about the second issue: The practice of law will likely change a lot in the next 20 years. Everyone has been reading stories about artificial intelligence that include predictions that AI will gobble up jobs in the information sector. That might be true. We all saw how good chess programs got in the space of about 25 years. Law practice is different from chess, and I can’t really say how it will all play out. I would be shocked if you had to be good at programming computers in order to be good at law practice. Every practicing law has experience using computers in their work today. We use Lexis and Westlaw to find sources of law and legal rules. Neither of these tools requires that we be “good at computing.” So, here is my guess. AI will reduce the total number of jobs in law practice over the next 20 years. But if your child is smart and creative, there will be a place for them in the practice of law.

That’s all, for now. Feel free to ask questions. I will try to check in at least once a week.

Practicing attorney here. I have a lot of respect for law professors, but they are probably not the best source on the actual practice of law.

There is literally no way AI can replace what I do. None.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In my view, the goal should be more refined as COA (cost of attendance) is important. Some Top 14 law schools are worth paying full tuition, while others are not. Depends upon how deep into the class biglaw firms are willing to go when hiring from a specific law school.

I would restate the goal as Top 13 law school, or Georgetown with a sizeable scholarship, or any full tuition scholarship at a well respected law school in the geographic region where you plan to live & work after finishing law school.

This is not good advice. There is absolutely no reason to single out Georgetown from the T14.

Except that Georgetown is a T15. and very expensive

[Anonymous]

People should know that private practice can be a very difficult path to take. Constant stress, threat of malpractice claims, billing pressure.