Anonymous wrote:So many people here are lawyers they don't get that in the real world people are only as good as their more recent accomplishments.

Op. Thank you. This is what I mean. It was embarrassing to see my bio being circulated with something I ‘accomplished’ in the 1990s. And no, it’s not bc I went to a bad law school or undergrad.

Anonymous wrote:Law is all about credentials. Every law firm website bio has an education section. LinkedIn has an education section. This is not new.

Sure on linkedin. But if I’m putting together a short bio on someone who has worked in the industry for 30 years, it feels silly to have a not insignificant part of that taken up by where they went to undergrad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why? Clients care or no one would do it. Even a partner 25 years out. Corporate clients want to see a resume they expect. They could be open to alternatives but most want central casting. It explains who they are getting.

I am a corporate client. I do not care where my OC went to college and what they majored in. And I don’t care about their law school either. I care that they have deep SME

How would you know whether or not the attorney has subject matter expertise ? And what is more important--subject matter expertise or legal skills & knowledge ?

This is a bizarre question. Because they work in that particular field. Legal work in a major market is highly specialized. Do you actually hire lawyers as outside counsel?? Law school does not give you ‘legal skills and knowledge’ for purposes of real world practice. Some law school clinics and such might, but that won’t be evident by ‘uva law’ on a resume. And I’m not talking about interviewing someone for a job. Obviously then I’d see a resume with education. I’m talking about working with a firm and having a new issue arise for which I need subject matter expertise. Someone will say ‘Jane and Jill are the two best lawyers on that, they did this and that, and represented blah blah and blah blah’ so I will then go talk to them.

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been practicing in biglaw for twenty years. There is a very strong, but not perfect, correlation between law school and capability. People from the top five law schools tend to be cerebral but not great practitioners. People from t6 to around t50 tend to be comparably very strong. Beyond that, you’re likely to find a significant decrease in quality. Also, I’m only talking about the people who have already been screened into biglaw. So in t14, that’s probably the top half or more of the class. In t50 it’s probably the top third. After t50 I think you need to be top ten or twenty percent. But even then, the quality typically significantly drops compared to your average t15 biglaw attorney.

Note this is all averages. I just fired an incompetent associate from Yale law. And one of the superstar equity partners in my group went to a “directional” law school in the Midwest I’d never heard of. But there are definitely trends.

If you’re outside counsel choosing your law firm counsel, you absolutely should pay attention to both school and law firm, because these are going to be the strongest predictors of competency. Theres no objective other way for you to gauge skill set or experience .

Op here. I assume you mean in house counsel. Obviously you look at firm, but I’m not looking up law school or undergrad degree and major for people in the firm!! Preposterous. I assume they were screened by the firm. And for the most part, they’re coming in by referral to me by someone else who knows their work. Mostly I’m using big law firms or firms well known in that practice area, with a few exceptions for a discrete speciality. I recently had to hire a firm to negotiate a developer’s access agreement. Know what that is? I didn’t. And the big law RE partner I usually work with didn’t really know either but tried to sell me on his firm doing the work.

I will agree with you somewhat on the other things you said. I’ve seen a number of T5 law school lawyers get fired. You wouldn’t think it would happen, but it does. Why? To put it simply, ime they’re often weird. The sweet spot for smart but common sense/EQ seems to be t15/20 to 50.

It is annoying but whatever. I went to a lower ranked law school. Feel free to underestimate me. I never wanted to work for a big firm or on behalf of corporations.

Because lawyers are insufferable and pompous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why? Clients care or no one would do it. Even a partner 25 years out. Corporate clients want to see a resume they expect. They could be open to alternatives but most want central casting. It explains who they are getting.

I am a corporate client. I do not care where my OC went to college and what they majored in. And I don’t care about their law school either. I care that they have deep SME

Please learn to write without the use of silly acronyms.

I’m an OC. I have never heard the acronym OC. (Outside counsel).

Op here. It wasn’t an acronym so much as a way to type quickly, assuming people would know from context.

I was in a marketing group for authors this week, and just about everyone had their schools listed in their bio. We’re all middle aged. I don’t want to list mine and won’t, but I went to a crappy school and a mid tier school.

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been practicing at a top Wall Street law firm for many years now in house and 20 years of experience. I wish it wasn’t this way but I always consider law school when hiring and also when I meet a new lawyer. I think most lawyers at elite firms or highly selective in house legal teams consider a lawyer’s law school as a data point. It obviously isn’t everything and the more experience and expertise you have under your belt the less it matters, but all things being relatively equal, most lawyers in my position will feel like a lawyer from a top school (T10) is a safer bet than someone from a less well regarded school.

But why? Law School has nothing to do with practice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why? Clients care or no one would do it. Even a partner 25 years out. Corporate clients want to see a resume they expect. They could be open to alternatives but most want central casting. It explains who they are getting.

I am a corporate client. I do not care where my OC went to college and what they majored in. And I don’t care about their law school either. I care that they have deep SME

Please learn to write without the use of silly acronyms.

I’m an OC. I have never heard the acronym OC. (Outside counsel).

"the best looking and best educated lawyers in the whole OC"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's standard in the field -- not sure why you don't understand this. The biggest context for bios is website copy written for clients. Clients want to see where the lawyers went to law school. Legal culture in general follows -- bios for CLE presenters, etc.

Doctors and dentists do this as well -- people look at that info when choosing a provider.

That you "find it embarrassing" is definitely about you, and not about the phenomenon.

Just because it is standard doesn’t make it any less dumb.

I really have no idea where my dentist went to school. Or my doctors.

Not wise to be uninformed as many physicians attended foreign med schools with much lower standards than US medical schools. And, yes, I understand that they all must pass the same licensing exam, but licensing exams are designed to test for basic competency--nothing more.

Basic competency is more important then having memorized lists of molecule names that will never matter.

I think it's obvious why OP doesn't like other people mentioning their alma mater.

I’ve been practicing in biglaw for twenty years. There is a very strong, but not perfect, correlation between law school and capability. People from the top five law schools tend to be cerebral but not great practitioners. People from t6 to around t50 tend to be comparably very strong. Beyond that, you’re likely to find a significant decrease in quality. Also, I’m only talking about the people who have already been screened into biglaw. So in t14, that’s probably the top half or more of the class. In t50 it’s probably the top third. After t50 I think you need to be top ten or twenty percent. But even then, the quality typically significantly drops compared to your average t15 biglaw attorney.

Note this is all averages. I just fired an incompetent associate from Yale law. And one of the superstar equity partners in my group went to a “directional” law school in the Midwest I’d never heard of. But there are definitely trends.

If you’re outside counsel choosing your law firm counsel, you absolutely should pay attention to both school and law firm, because these are going to be the strongest predictors of competency. Theres no objective other way for you to gauge skill set or experience .

So many people here are lawyers they don't get that in the real world people are only as good as their more recent accomplishments.

I’ve been practicing at a top Wall Street law firm for many years now in house and 20 years of experience. I wish it wasn’t this way but I always consider law school when hiring and also when I meet a new lawyer. I think most lawyers at elite firms or highly selective in house legal teams consider a lawyer’s law school as a data point. It obviously isn’t everything and the more experience and expertise you have under your belt the less it matters, but all things being relatively equal, most lawyers in my position will feel like a lawyer from a top school (T10) is a safer bet than someone from a less well regarded school.