Anonymous
Post 11/01/2025 17:59     Subject: Why do lawyers in my field insist on listing their Alma maters on their resumes, even after they’ve been practicing for
Anonymous wrote:Yeah I’m new on the in house side and we use the term OC internally.


Yeah, when I write up notes for myself, it’s ’conferred with OC on X’
Anonymous
Post 11/01/2025 17:51     Subject: Why do lawyers in my field insist on listing their Alma maters on their resumes, even after they’ve been practicing for
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:What is this little group that is getting together? That’s the issue.


Lawyers. All very senior. It just struck me bc I recently had to do a bio exchange for an industry event with non lawyers. Everyone highlighted their actual work.

I’d understand if it was a recent grad event.


Level of education and quality of education are just as important as "actual work".

You keep in telling us how you "feel" (struck, embarrassed, feeling of oddness), but these feelings are not anyone else's concern.


Are you ESL or just a bored troll? Obviously I don’t think it’s anyone’s ‘concern’. I’m just commenting. Relax, dude.
Anonymous
Post 11/01/2025 17:50     Subject: Why do lawyers in my field insist on listing their Alma maters on their resumes, even after they’ve been practicing for
It doesn't take much space, and in a field that is saturated, maybe someone else who went there will notice it on my resume.
Anonymous
Post 11/01/2025 17:49     Subject: Why do lawyers in my field insist on listing their Alma maters on their resumes, even after they’ve been practicing for
Anonymous wrote:
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


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.


Do you have to tell us your emotional reaction to everything?


Ok so you know nothing of this topic. Got it
Anonymous
Post 11/01/2025 17:20     Subject: Why do lawyers in my field insist on listing their Alma maters on their resumes, even after they’ve been practicing for
I don't remember seeing undergrad major listed in a bio for attorneys but where you went to college and graduate school is totally normal in many fields other than law. And, field of study is also totally normal for many areas of science.
Anonymous
Post 11/01/2025 16:25     Subject: Why do lawyers in my field insist on listing their Alma maters on their resumes, even after they’ve been practicing for
For a website bio, yes education is standard for lawyers.
Most lawyers with 20+ year of experience are not leading their bios with their educational credentials. I’ve never seen that.
Same for short, more casual, bios (small conferences etc). No law school info included.
A bigger conference - say, ABA or something like that, sure, maybe you’ll see law school at the end.
Anonymous
Post 11/01/2025 16:17     Subject: Why do lawyers in my field insist on listing their Alma maters on their resumes, even after they’ve been practicing for
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.


This is not true. Intelligence, education, drive, AND experience matter.
Anonymous
Post 11/01/2025 16:16     Subject: Why do lawyers in my field insist on listing their Alma maters on their resumes, even after they’ve been practicing for
Anonymous wrote:
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.


Because you don’t actually learn anything in law school, so the toughest part of it is getting in. If you can demonstrate that you have what it takes to get in, you probably have what it takes to be good at practicing. Unless you go to a t5, where you are probably better at being a law prof than a practitioner.
Anonymous
Post 11/01/2025 16:15     Subject: Why do lawyers in my field insist on listing their Alma maters on their resumes, even after they’ve been practicing for
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


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.


Do you have to tell us your emotional reaction to everything?
Anonymous
Post 11/01/2025 16:14     Subject: Why do lawyers in my field insist on listing their Alma maters on their resumes, even after they’ve been practicing for
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:What is this little group that is getting together? That’s the issue.


Lawyers. All very senior. It just struck me bc I recently had to do a bio exchange for an industry event with non lawyers. Everyone highlighted their actual work.

I’d understand if it was a recent grad event.


Level of education and quality of education are just as important as "actual work".

You keep in telling us how you "feel" (struck, embarrassed, feeling of oddness), but these feelings are not anyone else's concern.
Anonymous
Post 11/01/2025 16:12     Subject: Why do lawyers in my field insist on listing their Alma maters on their resumes, even after they’ve been practicing for
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.


+1. I chose my kid’s orthodontist based off their dental school.
Anonymous
Post 11/01/2025 16:07     Subject: Why do lawyers in my field insist on listing their Alma maters on their resumes, even after they’ve been practicing for
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.



^^^^^^
Anonymous
Post 11/01/2025 16:04     Subject: Why do lawyers in my field insist on listing their Alma maters on their resumes, even after they’ve been practicing for
Anonymous wrote:
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"



Lolz
Anonymous
Post 11/01/2025 16:04     Subject: Why do lawyers in my field insist on listing their Alma maters on their resumes, even after they’ve been practicing for
Not law, but it’s also pretty standard in my field. People mention a sentence that they hold PhD or MSc from x university in y degree. It’s not them being embarrassingly attached to Alma mater, it’s more of a standard.
Anonymous
Post 11/01/2025 15:59     Subject: Why do lawyers in my field insist on listing their Alma maters on their resumes, even after they’ve been practicing for
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.


This is for hiring, right? As an associate/employee. Someone you want to do a good job, and make money for you. My example was a little different. Although I’ll say that there’s a weirdo factor for the top top law schools. A safer bet is a little lower ranked. And obviously we’ve all seen the rainmaker effect. Mid tier law school grad = super rainmaker with the top tier law school guys working on his scraps.