Temping as an attorney -- tips?

[Anonymous]

I agree with the PP regarding the "shame" concept. Maybe shame is the wrong word, but my experience with temping was that it was a complete dead-end and the working conditions and projects were miserable. You were punching a clock.

I have friends who ended up temping for 10+ years as they never could find a permanent job. That is not a life.

And I am not looking down on them, I feel sorry for them and an angry at the law schools and the law profession for perpetutating their misery. There are too many law school and not enough jobs. I bailed on law and have not looked back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with temping is that the agency is making a killing off you. Back in the days I did it, the agency charged the client $60 an hour for me, and paid me only $35 an hour. Barely worth it to cover childcare costs.

You dont think $72k/yr is worth it? Well, maybe it's not for you. For some people, that's a lot of money.

No, it wasn't worth it when I was paying $42,000 a year in after tax income for childcare.

[Anonymous]

I'm the PP who came up with the original numbered list of types who temp. I want to clarify that I don't think there's "shame" in working as a contract attorney. On the job we used to joke around about being slaves but really it's a disservice to people who really are slaves or are even working in menial labor for long hours. After all, we were sitting on our butts and shuffling papers (or worse yet, electronically shuffling) so all in all, it's a good gig. In some ways, a monkey could do it.

It is what it is--a way to make money. Generally speaking, it is not interesting work. It's not that satisfying because you're a temporary cog in a big wheel and don't see the big picture or have an influence. Not that anyone here has expressed an interest, but it's rarely, very rarely, a for in the door to the firm where you're temping.

If you're realistic going in, it's a fine gig.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with temping is that the agency is making a killing off you. Back in the days I did it, the agency charged the client $60 an hour for me, and paid me only $35 an hour. Barely worth it to cover childcare costs.

You dont think $72k/yr is worth it? Well, maybe it's not for you. For some people, that's a lot of money.

No, it wasn't worth it when I was paying $42,000 a year in after tax income for childcare.

Childcare doesn't have to be that expensive. It sounds like you had a choice and that's a good thing. Some people dont have that choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who came up with the original numbered list of types who temp. I want to clarify that I don't think there's "shame" in working as a contract attorney. On the job we used to joke around about being slaves but really it's a disservice to people who really are slaves or are even working in menial labor for long hours. After all, we were sitting on our butts and shuffling papers (or worse yet, electronically shuffling) so all in all, it's a good gig. In some ways, a monkey could do it.

It is what it is--a way to make money. Generally speaking, it is not interesting work. It's not that satisfying because you're a temporary cog in a big wheel and don't see the big picture or have an influence. Not that anyone here has expressed an interest, but it's rarely, very rarely, a for in the door to the firm where you're temping.

If you're realistic going in, it's a fine gig.

One way to look at it is that a monkey could do it but another way to view it is in the big picture. Did you ever stop to think how amazing it is to take that vast amount of data and boil it down to one or two legal arguments? Putting together a smooth discovery is a skill. Not all attorneys have that skill or need to have that skill but it's still a fascinating process--one that is being improved upon every day with technology.

[Anonymous]

The temp attorneys are not strategizing or looking at the big picture, they are staring at a screen all day as they input data into a software program. It is mindless drudgery.

If it pays the bills, great. No shame in that. But personally, I don't like the way they are paid, treated as second class citizens and segregated out of view. I'd do it in a heartbeat to put food on the table.

My beef is with the ABA for allowing this plague of law schools to spread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with temping is that the agency is making a killing off you. Back in the days I did it, the agency charged the client $60 an hour for me, and paid me only $35 an hour. Barely worth it to cover childcare costs.

You dont think $72k/yr is worth it? Well, maybe it's not for you. For some people, that's a lot of money.

No, it wasn't worth it when I was paying $42,000 a year in after tax income for childcare.

Childcare doesn't have to be that expensive. It sounds like you had a choice and that's a good thing. Some people dont have that choice.

If you're only temping temporarily (hopefully), it makes no sense to disrupt long standing childcare arrangements. My comment was more than almost 50% of what I was earning wasn't coming to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who came up with the original numbered list of types who temp. I want to clarify that I don't think there's "shame" in working as a contract attorney. On the job we used to joke around about being slaves but really it's a disservice to people who really are slaves or are even working in menial labor for long hours. After all, we were sitting on our butts and shuffling papers (or worse yet, electronically shuffling) so all in all, it's a good gig. In some ways, a monkey could do it.

It is what it is--a way to make money. Generally speaking, it is not interesting work. It's not that satisfying because you're a temporary cog in a big wheel and don't see the big picture or have an influence. Not that anyone here has expressed an interest, but it's rarely, very rarely, a for in the door to the firm where you're temping.

If you're realistic going in, it's a fine gig.

One way to look at it is that a monkey could do it but another way to view it is in the big picture. Did you ever stop to think how amazing it is to take that vast amount of data and boil it down to one or two legal arguments? Putting together a smooth discovery is a skill. Not all attorneys have that skill or need to have that skill but it's still a fascinating process--one that is being improved upon every day with technology.

Contract attorneys are not really boiling anything down to one or two legal arguments--they're not really making legal arguments at all. That's what's so non-amazing about the whole thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who came up with the original numbered list of types who temp. I want to clarify that I don't think there's "shame" in working as a contract attorney. On the job we used to joke around about being slaves but really it's a disservice to people who really are slaves or are even working in menial labor for long hours. After all, we were sitting on our butts and shuffling papers (or worse yet, electronically shuffling) so all in all, it's a good gig. In some ways, a monkey could do it.

It is what it is--a way to make money. Generally speaking, it is not interesting work. It's not that satisfying because you're a temporary cog in a big wheel and don't see the big picture or have an influence. Not that anyone here has expressed an interest, but it's rarely, very rarely, a for in the door to the firm where you're temping.

If you're realistic going in, it's a fine gig.

One way to look at it is that a monkey could do it but another way to view it is in the big picture. Did you ever stop to think how amazing it is to take that vast amount of data and boil it down to one or two legal arguments? Putting together a smooth discovery is a skill. Not all attorneys have that skill or need to have that skill but it's still a fascinating process--one that is being improved upon every day with technology.

Contract attorneys are not really boiling anything down to one or two legal arguments--they're not really making legal arguments at all. That's what's so non-amazing about the whole thing.

Yes but they are exposed to the process and the arguments. You can either just click or you can click and think. When I temped, I chose to click and think. I learned a lot--whether you can accept that or not.

[Anonymous]

clicking and thinking? you need to post that on http://temporaryattorney.blogspot.com/

I'm sure that will change their minds.

[Anonymous]

That blog provides the worst of the industry. Im in it. It's not that bad.

[Anonymous]

Being a contract attorney is a job, not a career. That being said, I don't know why people are referring to it as "shameful." It seems snobby. If it pays the bills and you're not miserable doing it, its fine.
However, did anyone see the article in the NYT about the new software for doing document reviews? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=legal%20software&st=cse
I wonder if this will reduce the number of opportunities for temp attorneys over time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Being a contract attorney is a job, not a career. That being said, I don't know why people are referring to it as "shameful." It seems snobby. If it pays the bills and you're not miserable doing it, its fine.
However, did anyone see the article in the NYT about the new software for doing document reviews? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=legal%20software&st=cse
I wonder if this will reduce the number of opportunities for temp attorneys over time.

that and outsourcing = need for even less law schools.

I really wish they would close down 100 law schools by the end of this decade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a contract attorney is a job, not a career. That being said, I don't know why people are referring to it as "shameful." It seems snobby. If it pays the bills and you're not miserable doing it, its fine.
However, did anyone see the article in the NYT about the new software for doing document reviews? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=legal%20software&st=cse
I wonder if this will reduce the number of opportunities for temp attorneys over time.

I agree with this.

I temped (as a paralegal doing doc review) the summer between college and law school seven years ago now- I made $18/hr, plus overtime, plus dinner allowance then- it was GREAT, great money. The rates today- when the price of law school has gone through the roof every year since then- are getting to be less, as a PP said, $32 for an attorney with no overtime, and some requirements that the attorney have experience as a BigLaw associate or somesuch. The document review is a dying industry. BigLaw is a dying business model.

That being said, I'm surprised this thread is so positive regarding document review. I thought I was one of the few who see no "shame" in it- I think it is work many people wouldn't want to do (not fulfilling), but it is honest work.

But it is a bit sad (for lawyers), that work was once done by junior associates... then by contract attorneys... increasingly outsourced to India-based contract attorneys... now being performed by linguistics software for much, much, much less money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To work on a project in DC, you need to be DC barred or DC-pending.

PP are you certain that this is true? Can you please refer me to something that confirms this? I'm only barred in NY and recently applied to a number of agencies -- none have told me that I need to be DC barred or pending. I've been holding off on submitting my application because now is not a great time for me to pay the $775 fee, but I'll obviously submit it if I'm not going to get work otherwise.