Is law school worth it nowadays?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

yes, biglaw has changed from what it was before the 2008 crash, but I don't see where automation is having an effect. it's clients demanding more for less money spent. automation can help a bit here, but in the long run isn't going to have a real effect. it's true that clients don't want to pay for first years to learn, but what is a biglaw firm going to do - not hire first years? they need midlevels and seniors and can only rely so much on hiring laterals from boutiques and midlaw.

How about hire first years but do not bill them out at exorbitant rates? As a GC, I am not going to pay $350/hr for Biglaw to teach a first year how to put together a transactional closing checklist as a "teaching exercise" when a half-decent paralegal can pull it together at less than half the rate in half the time. Biglaw needs to build training into its business model ---not just expect clients to pay full freight for first years who know NOTHING. I only pay for one lawyer at a meeting---don't put the partner on the call and have an associate sitting there in the background and then bill me $1000+/hr for both.

Totally agree. The U.S. law school model is broken. Period. Just look at our neighbors to the north or across the Atlantic. They adopt a apprenticeship approach where students are required to work for a year (or two(?)) at a firm as a trainee to become barred and licensed. Just like how residency is here in the U.S. It's unfortunate how the money-hungry lawyers of the profession have corrupted the education and training.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

yes, biglaw has changed from what it was before the 2008 crash, but I don't see where automation is having an effect. it's clients demanding more for less money spent. automation can help a bit here, but in the long run isn't going to have a real effect. it's true that clients don't want to pay for first years to learn, but what is a biglaw firm going to do - not hire first years? they need midlevels and seniors and can only rely so much on hiring laterals from boutiques and midlaw.

How about hire first years but do not bill them out at exorbitant rates? As a GC, I am not going to pay $350/hr for Biglaw to teach a first year how to put together a transactional closing checklist as a "teaching exercise" when a half-decent paralegal can pull it together at less than half the rate in half the time. Biglaw needs to build training into its business model ---not just expect clients to pay full freight for first years who know NOTHING. I only pay for one lawyer at a meeting---don't put the partner on the call and have an associate sitting there in the background and then bill me $1000+/hr for both.

Totally agree. The U.S. law school model is broken. Period. Just look at our neighbors to the north or across the Atlantic. They adopt a apprenticeship approach where students are required to work for a year (or two(?)) at a firm as a trainee to become barred and licensed. Just like how residency is here in the U.S. It's unfortunate how the money-hungry lawyers of the profession have corrupted the education and training.

Therein lies the conundrum - those high rates make 65k tuition justifiable for greedy law schools (which historically have been profit centers for colleges).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

yes, biglaw has changed from what it was before the 2008 crash, but I don't see where automation is having an effect. it's clients demanding more for less money spent. automation can help a bit here, but in the long run isn't going to have a real effect. it's true that clients don't want to pay for first years to learn, but what is a biglaw firm going to do - not hire first years? they need midlevels and seniors and can only rely so much on hiring laterals from boutiques and midlaw.

How about hire first years but do not bill them out at exorbitant rates? As a GC, I am not going to pay $350/hr for Biglaw to teach a first year how to put together a transactional closing checklist as a "teaching exercise" when a half-decent paralegal can pull it together at less than half the rate in half the time. Biglaw needs to build training into its business model ---not just expect clients to pay full freight for first years who know NOTHING. I only pay for one lawyer at a meeting---don't put the partner on the call and have an associate sitting there in the background and then bill me $1000+/hr for both.

The focus on seniority is so typical of in house lawyer type thinking. Who cares who is staffed on the deal? The only thing that matters is the quality of the work product relative to the bottom line price. Everything else is just moving numbers around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
yes, biglaw has changed from what it was before the 2008 crash, but I don't see where automation is having an effect. it's clients demanding more for less money spent. automation can help a bit here, but in the long run isn't going to have a real effect. it's true that clients don't want to pay for first years to learn, but what is a biglaw firm going to do - not hire first years? they need midlevels and seniors and can only rely so much on hiring laterals from boutiques and midlaw.


How about hire first years but do not bill them out at exorbitant rates? As a GC, I am not going to pay $350/hr for Biglaw to teach a first year how to put together a transactional closing checklist as a "teaching exercise" when a half-decent paralegal can pull it together at less than half the rate in half the time. Biglaw needs to build training into its business model ---not just expect clients to pay full freight for first years who know NOTHING. I only pay for one lawyer at a meeting---don't put the partner on the call and have an associate sitting there in the background and then bill me $1000+/hr for both.



The focus on seniority is so typical of in house lawyer type thinking. Who cares who is staffed on the deal? The only thing that matters is the quality of the work product relative to the bottom line price. Everything else is just moving numbers around.

Um---as the person who is paying you[u] I care quite a lot about who is staffed on a deal---particularly when the law firm's decisions re staffing result in a higher bottom line price. I didn't say anything about seniority in my post above---I just said that I did not want to pay for two lawyers on one call when one lawyer would be sufficient. But what happens is that both the partner and the associate are on the call. This is either because (a) the partner does not think the associate has the experience/judgment to do the call alone but wants the associate to participate for training purposes; or (b) the associate is perfectly competent to do the work but the partner want to guard the client relationship and thus will not let the associate do the call alone or (c) the law firm just wants to screw over my company and needlessly double bill. All of the above are unacceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if it is now. I graduated UVA back in '09 and tuition then was like $33K per year. It's up to $56K now and it will probably increase while one is enrolled. Say average tuition is $60K per year x 3 years = $180K plus living expenses of let's say $10K per year (rent, utilities, food, etc.) = $210K total cost of attendance. I took a quick look and NYU is similar ($59K / year) and UPenn is also $59K per year. That's a fuck ton of loans that will accrue interest during school at approximately 6%.

The estimated expenses inc tuition fees and room and Board is $92k per the upenn website.

https://www.law.upenn.edu/admissions/grad/tuition-fees.php

[Anonymous]

Its worthy it depending on how you use it. My BF went to a no-name law school. Practiced law minimally after graduation, and was mostly unemployed. It was very hard for him to find employment in her area of interest (environment).

Since DW made enough to support them both, he ended up doing a lot of volunteer work with her spare time. Eventually he ran for office in his local town and won. After a few years, he ran for state rep and won that. Now he's a rising star in her state legislature.

All this is to say, a law degree can take you as far as you want it to. The biggest thing is to monitor cost. If you can't get into a top tier school, consider a much cheaper school. Be okay with not being on the A-lost track for a few years. If you are good, the results will even out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its worthy it depending on how you use it. My BF went to a no-name law school. Practiced law minimally after graduation, and was mostly unemployed. It was very hard for him to find employment in her area of interest (environment).

Since DW made enough to support them both, he ended up doing a lot of volunteer work with her spare time. Eventually he ran for office in his local town and won. After a few years, he ran for state rep and won that. Now he's a rising star in her state legislature.

All this is to say, a law degree can take you as far as you want it to. The biggest thing is to monitor cost. If you can't get into a top tier school, consider a much cheaper school. Be okay with not being on the A-lost track for a few years. If you are good, the results will even out.

sorry for butchering him/her. spell check issues

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if it is now. I graduated UVA back in '09 and tuition then was like $33K per year. It's up to $56K now and it will probably increase while one is enrolled. Say average tuition is $60K per year x 3 years = $180K plus living expenses of let's say $10K per year (rent, utilities, food, etc.) = $210K total cost of attendance. I took a quick look and NYU is similar ($59K / year) and UPenn is also $59K per year. That's a fuck ton of loans that will accrue interest during school at approximately 6%.

The estimated expenses inc tuition fees and room and Board is $92k per the upenn website.

https://www.law.upenn.edu/admissions/grad/tuition-fees.php

PP here and my understanding is that the schools game the total cost of attendance numbers somewhat to increase the amount that students are allowed to borrow so I think it's better to start with tuition and then consider what your actual living expenses would look like. UPenn's budget, for example, seems to include an LLM summer program fee of $2,700 which most law students probably won't be paying. Either way, it's still ton of money these new lawyers will have to pay back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its worthy it depending on how you use it. My BF went to a no-name law school. Practiced law minimally after graduation, and was mostly unemployed. It was very hard for him to find employment in her area of interest (environment).

Since DW made enough to support them both, he ended up doing a lot of volunteer work with her spare time. Eventually he ran for office in his local town and won. After a few years, he ran for state rep and won that. Now he's a rising star in her state legislature.

All this is to say, a law degree can take you as far as you want it to. The biggest thing is to monitor cost. If you can't get into a top tier school, consider a much cheaper school. Be okay with not being on the A-lost track for a few years. If you are good, the results will even out.

This sounds like a solid plan for those contemplating law school. You could always end up unemployed, volunteer, and become a state legislator! Give me a break.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely not worth it. Even if you go to Columbia, biglaw is not guaranteed. Government or non-profit work straight out of law school is even tougher to land.

You cannot "do anything" with a law degree. You need to be a lawyer first and then transition into whatever world-saving, policy job your niece is imagining. Nowadays, that requires going to at least a T14 (preferably T6), getting first year grades above median, and working a soul crushing biglaw job in a transferable practice area for several years until you can escape. Screw up anywhere along the way and you'll find it difficult to recover.