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.

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

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.

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%.

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 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.

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.

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.