Law school pedigree after Big Law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, this has not been my experience. Partner at a Big Law firm and went to a Midwest state school for law school. Have been at two big law firms in my career and we never focused much on law school when making partnership decisions. Much more focused on book of business.

Most Big Law firms do NOT make partnership decisions "focused on book of business." Most senior associates up for partner don't even have a "book of business." "Book of business" will count a lot for lateral partners, obviously, but not for associates coming up through the ranks.

I know everyone is different but you didn’t have a book of business as an associate up for partner? Clients that were your main responsibility/that you were matter manager for? Maybe my firms are unusual but associates absolutely have a couple of their own clients. Practice area is government affairs so maybe that is the differentiator.

It's really unhelpful not knowing the firm that you're talking about, because for most top tier firms in top tier cities -- say, New York, DC, LA, Chicago -- this is NOT the norm. Sure, senior associates might be expected to have clients that are their "main responsibility" or "matter manager" for -- but that still doesn't make those matters the associate's "book." If the associate doesn't make partner and leaves the first, you can best believe that most of those matters won't walk out the door with her.

Yea, maybe in a niche practice like government affairs an associate up for partner might be expected to have their own client, but I'll say this: that associate isn't going to make partner with any of the big guns in DC on that basis alone. They're more likely to be offered a counsel position.

The better the firm, the less likley the associate for partner will have a book. The case is made based on the department or group and the potential of that person to develop work. Further down the pecking order, associates are expected to have a book. Just to pull a couple of examples -- for the DC firms mentioned above -- I would not expect a Wilmer, W&C, or Covington new partner to have a book -- they may which would be great but they are being promoted on potential and what their group is going. Same in NY for S&C, Paul Weiss, Davis Polk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, this has not been my experience. Partner at a Big Law firm and went to a Midwest state school for law school. Have been at two big law firms in my career and we never focused much on law school when making partnership decisions. Much more focused on book of business.

Most Big Law firms do NOT make partnership decisions "focused on book of business." Most senior associates up for partner don't even have a "book of business." "Book of business" will count a lot for lateral partners, obviously, but not for associates coming up through the ranks.

I know everyone is different but you didn’t have a book of business as an associate up for partner? Clients that were your main responsibility/that you were matter manager for? Maybe my firms are unusual but associates absolutely have a couple of their own clients. Practice area is government affairs so maybe that is the differentiator.

It's really unhelpful not knowing the firm that you're talking about, because for most top tier firms in top tier cities -- say, New York, DC, LA, Chicago -- this is NOT the norm. Sure, senior associates might be expected to have clients that are their "main responsibility" or "matter manager" for -- but that still doesn't make those matters the associate's "book." If the associate doesn't make partner and leaves the first, you can best believe that most of those matters won't walk out the door with her.

Yea, maybe in a niche practice like government affairs an associate up for partner might be expected to have their own client, but I'll say this: that associate isn't going to make partner with any of the big guns in DC on that basis alone. They're more likely to be offered a counsel position.

Don’t want to dox myself but such a huge firm not like it matters, ha. Dentons.

[Anonymous]

Can someone list the top schools. The T14 or 30 or whatever it is ….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, this has not been my experience. Partner at a Big Law firm and went to a Midwest state school for law school. Have been at two big law firms in my career and we never focused much on law school when making partnership decisions. Much more focused on book of business.

Most Big Law firms do NOT make partnership decisions "focused on book of business." Most senior associates up for partner don't even have a "book of business." "Book of business" will count a lot for lateral partners, obviously, but not for associates coming up through the ranks.

I know everyone is different but you didn’t have a book of business as an associate up for partner? Clients that were your main responsibility/that you were matter manager for? Maybe my firms are unusual but associates absolutely have a couple of their own clients. Practice area is government affairs so maybe that is the differentiator.

+1

It is also clear, after a couple of years, which associates will be able to connect with/attract/retain clients. It's a skill (perhaps even a talent), and most don't have it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone list the top schools. The T14 or 30 or whatever it is ….

FFS, Google it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone list the top schools. The T14 or 30 or whatever it is ….

Anytime you want rankings just google USNWR...https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings

And to answer OP's question..." It depends". If the city is desirable...law competition is brutal. So yes, your law school will pretty much always matter. Fancy firms like for their firm's bios to look elite and the same goes for their Martindale Hubble ( legal directory) entries.

But, I went to law school in Cleveland where some top firms such as Jones Day, and Squire, etc. Are HQ'd. I went to a lower tiered law school, was Editor-in-Chief of the Law Review, + had previously worked on the Hill for the US Senate Judiciary Committee ( no one else in Cleveland had that experience; whereas, it is common in DC). I had a great career and am retired now. I have a young friend in Pittsburgh who has a similar story. Moral of the story...go to a crappy city to land a job in Big Law if you graduated from anything below T14.

[Anonymous]

How can you escape it? The LSAT is a basically an IQ test on steroids. Your law school's LSAT median and 25th and 75th percentiles are a good proxy for your own intelligence.

Here are some figures from before the LSAC did away with Logic Games:

https://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/

Undergrad, you basically need a gazillion hooks to get into a good college. But, law school, you have no excuse.

I honestly don't know what to think about those who graduated at the top of their class at low-ranked schools. So you beat up a bunch of kindergarteners?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can you escape it? The LSAT is a basically an IQ test on steroids. Your law school's LSAT median and 25th and 75th percentiles are a good proxy for your own intelligence.

Here are some figures from before the LSAC did away with Logic Games:

https://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/

Undergrad, you basically need a gazillion hooks to get into a good college. But, law school, you have no excuse.

I honestly don't know what to think about those who graduated at the top of their class at low-ranked schools. So you beat up a bunch of kindergarteners?

The LSAT did away with logic games? Why? Is the MCAT also an
“iQ test”? It has the CARS section. Why is the point spread on the LSAT so much larger than the MCAT? You’re looking at 145-175 versus 500-520, more or less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can you escape it? The LSAT is a basically an IQ test on steroids. Your law school's LSAT median and 25th and 75th percentiles are a good proxy for your own intelligence.

Here are some figures from before the LSAC did away with Logic Games:

https://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/

Undergrad, you basically need a gazillion hooks to get into a good college. But, law school, you have no excuse.

I honestly don't know what to think about those who graduated at the top of their class at low-ranked schools. So you beat up a bunch of kindergarteners?

I agree law school is a pretty good barometer for the rest of your career on your competency for legal work.

I went to a well ranked school and graduated in top ten percent, did dc biglaw at a good firm and was surrounded by peers who were for the most part objectively and obviously very bright competent people. For a few years I worked out of our Miami office where all the associates were recruited as top of their class from Uni of Miami. The differences between those associates and the dc associates (from better law schools) was very very obvious.

I do think state schools are an exception to this, because stellar people may go to state schools for a variety of good reasons. So the top ten percent of students at good state schools are usually very sharp. Eg top of your class at UF is no different than top of your class at Georgetown when it comes to working competence in a demanding job. But the bottom 90 percent at a place like UF is way below the quality of the bottom 90 percent at a place like Georgetown.

In short, I think there’s a reason schools continue to matter for good jobs. Of course being a star rainmaker can override all this.

[Anonymous]

People paying for their own law school tuition who don't want to pay 125K a year will take a scholarship at a lesser school. Borrowing all that money obligates you to try and do big law, which isn't for everyone. The prize of the brass ring not infrequently loses its shine once you get there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People paying for their own law school tuition who don't want to pay 125K a year will take a scholarship at a lesser school. Borrowing all that money obligates you to try and do big law, which isn't for everyone. The prize of the brass ring not infrequently loses its shine once you get there.

That’s why I said in a previous post that good state schools can also reliably churn out excellent lawyers. But needs to be the top state school in your state, and you need to graduate absolutely top of your class. Being top twenty percent in a mid private law school is not going to be a top lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can you escape it? The LSAT is a basically an IQ test on steroids. Your law school's LSAT median and 25th and 75th percentiles are a good proxy for your own intelligence.

Here are some figures from before the LSAC did away with Logic Games:

https://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/

Undergrad, you basically need a gazillion hooks to get into a good college. But, law school, you have no excuse.

I honestly don't know what to think about those who graduated at the top of their class at low-ranked schools. So you beat up a bunch of kindergarteners?

It really isn't. It tests how good you are at thinking like a lawyer. Plenty of brilliant people out there who aren't as highly analytical as those of us who scored well on the lsat. I scored 99th percentile on the lsat, and I'm downright challenged, lol. I'm a good lawyer, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you escape it? The LSAT is a basically an IQ test on steroids. Your law school's LSAT median and 25th and 75th percentiles are a good proxy for your own intelligence.

Here are some figures from before the LSAC did away with Logic Games:

https://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/

Undergrad, you basically need a gazillion hooks to get into a good college. But, law school, you have no excuse.

I honestly don't know what to think about those who graduated at the top of their class at low-ranked schools. So you beat up a bunch of kindergarteners?

The LSAT did away with logic games? Why? Is the MCAT also an
“iQ test”? It has the CARS section. Why is the point spread on the LSAT so much larger than the MCAT? You’re looking at 145-175 versus 500-520, more or less.

Unfair to those with a specific disability -- blindness. Figuring those puzzles out is highly visual. I scored very highly on the lsat and I had to draw pictures to do the logic puzzles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you escape it? The LSAT is a basically an IQ test on steroids. Your law school's LSAT median and 25th and 75th percentiles are a good proxy for your own intelligence.

Here are some figures from before the LSAC did away with Logic Games:

https://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/

Undergrad, you basically need a gazillion hooks to get into a good college. But, law school, you have no excuse.

I honestly don't know what to think about those who graduated at the top of their class at low-ranked schools. So you beat up a bunch of kindergarteners?

The LSAT did away with logic games? Why? Is the MCAT also an
“iQ test”? It has the CARS section. Why is the point spread on the LSAT so much larger than the MCAT? You’re looking at 145-175 versus 500-520, more or less.

Unfair to those with a specific disability -- blindness. Figuring those puzzles out is highly visual. I scored very highly on the lsat and I had to draw pictures to do the logic puzzles.

Ditto. I almost cried when I saw that the "extra" section was ... another logic section. I did very well, I just hated them! On the other hand, I do sometime encounter issues for which visual diagramming is helpful, so I guess I learned something.