Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From our firm's persepctive it would not matter. We rarely hire first years. If we do, it is people who intern with us over the summer during law school, or people who have connecitons with the firm (i.e. their dad is a major client, their family has been friends with one of the name partners for 30 years). At my prior firm we simply did not hire first years.
The reason is simple. Coming out of law school, you really know nothing about practicing law. If you paid attention you may have learned to think. A first year lawyer is almost useless for a year, then moderately less useless for another two. During that time experienced lawyers have to spend a great deal fo time teaching them how to practice law. After 3-5 years, they become useful and then go off to work for another firm. Almost all law students are disenchanted with their first job experience and think there is something wrong witht hat particular firm. Eventually they realize it is the same everywhere, and the problem is their expetations do not align with the reality of legal proactice.
Anyway, in most cases no one wants to put hundreds of thousands of dollars of time traning new lawyers just to have them leave. Better to let someone else train them and then pick them off and just correct anything they learned incorrectly. Of course some of them get picked up by shady or unprofessional mentors and there is no fixing them after that. So you pick carefully form people from sources you know will provide decent training.
It is sometimes pretty easy to pick off top students. They go to big firms who cna afford to train them and then lose most of them. Big firms are awful to work for to mst people. Thus, you can frequently pick off well trained highly qualified candidates evne though you are offering them less money. Otherwise you pick up people who finagle their way into a small firm or who volunteer for a while to learn the ropes. Quite a lot of mediochre law students end up volunteering for a few years after law school. Recently one of our clients with an in house legal department advertised for a paralegal. They got resumes from dozens of fully admitted lawyers who just wanted any kind of job.
The market is terrible for new lawyers. Unless you are a top student or have connections, you are going to end up volunteering or working in some terrible/low paying posisiton for a while. For those jobs, it makes no difference whether you take some time off. Once you have three or more years of experience, no one will care whether you took time off during law school. If you have connecitons to get you a job, it will make no difference whether you took time off, except you may miss a window of opportunity. On the other hand, you might find a window of opportunity. A lot of getting a job is about timing. Even with connectons, if you graduate when we do nto need you - we do not need you.
To give you an example, our most recent hire came to us after graduation. He had known a name partner for about five years. He was closely connected with a signficiant client who had tried to place him in a managment position. He interviewed very well and offered to work for free until he got his bar results. We hired him, not free, but at a minimal salary. His work was excellent (actually the best work I have seen from a first year in about 15 years) and when he passed the bar, we hired him as an attorney. Most of us never knew his GPA and did not care. If he took time off during law school, which is possible, we woudl not have known nor cared. I have no idea how old he is. What I do know is his analytical skills are execellent and his writing is decent, plus e has connections wiht busniesses that could result in future business for the firm. He could have taken two years off during laws school and we would not give a darn.
Today connecitons are the key to a successful legal career. If you do not have them, you have to get them. Often that means vounteer work or working at a bad job. If you make the right connecitons, whether to took time off during law school will matter not one whit.
This sounds like it could be a more typical perspective for smaller shops (I don't want to venture too far with that because I didn't apply to any, and thus have little experience interacting with legal recruiters from them). I was able to stumble into the "legal unicorn" that is a mid-sized firm that pays just under market, where I'll (hopefully) get the benefit of not working to death without having to starve. As far as experience goes, the issue these days is just getting your foot in the door.
I have a lot of friends from college who went on to law school ... great schools, mediocre schools, and everything in between. They passed the bar. What is odd this is that some from the great schools left the field and some from the not-so-great schools still practice. !
Hi robertpolyglot--
Current law student so I think I can at least partially answer this - a lot of the students at the "great" schools, especially concentrated on the coasts and in the big cities - they often wind up getting the highest-paying jobs at large firms. But that lifestyle isn't for everyone. They rake in the dough, but they put their entire lives into their jobs. And it causes a lot of people to drop the profession after a few years. It takes a special type of person to plug away at that kind of job, year in and year out.
I admit I'm not one of those - I would have no problem finding a cushy government job making $50,000 a year, and then setting up a practice on the side to make more money when I feel like it.
Current law student so I think I can at least partially answer this - a lot of the students at the "great" schools, especially concentrated on the coasts and in the big cities - they often wind up getting the highest-paying jobs at large firms. But that lifestyle isn't for everyone. They rake in the dough, but they put their entire lives into their jobs. And it causes a lot of people to drop the profession after a few years. It takes a special type of person to plug away at that kind of job, year in and year out.
I admit I'm not one of those - I would have no problem finding a cushy government job making $50,000 a year, and then setting up a practice on the side to make more money when I feel like it.
The Catch-22 is that it's overwhelmingly easier to get just about any prestigious/high-paying position from a top school. Going to a top school gives you options--a lot of people do end up going to giant firms, but others go into government, join high-profile public interest organizations, clerk, etc. etc. Even if you'd rather not grind out big firm life, it's better to have the option available as a backup, because the bulk of legal jobs do come from these firms. In addition to being pushed toward these positions by default as a result of the job market, legitimate reasons for preferring these firms include wanting to pay off loans and having the broadest exit options. I wouldn't say "most" people who start at big firms leave law entirely (although a significant proportion certainly move on to other fields). A more common route is to lateral into a somewhat smaller firm or in-house position. Although the direct correlation between firm prestige and exit options is overstated by some, it's definitely infinitely easier to "start big and then go small" than doing it the other way around.
From our firm's persepctive it would not matter. We rarely hire first years.
The reason is simple. Coming out of law school, you really know nothing about practicing law. If you paid attention you may have learned to think. A first year lawyer is almost useless for a year, then moderately less useless for another two. During that time experienced lawyers have to spend a great deal fo time teaching them how to practice law. After 3-5 years, they become useful and then go off to work for another firm. Almost all law students are disenchanted with their first job experience and think there is something wrong witht hat particular firm. Eventually they realize it is the same everywhere, and the problem is their expetations do not align with the reality of legal proactice.
It is sometimes pretty easy to pick off top students. They go to big firms who cna afford to train them and then lose most of them. Big firms are awful to work for to mst people. Thus, you can frequently pick off well trained highly qualified candidates evne though you are offering them less money. Otherwise you pick up people who finagle their way into a small firm or who volunteer for a while to learn the ropes. Quite a lot of mediochre law students end up volunteering for a few years after law school. Recently one of our clients with an in house legal department advertised for a paralegal. They got resumes from dozens of fully admitted lawyers who just wanted any kind of job.
To give you an example, our most recent hire came to us after graduation. He had known a name partner for about five years. He was closely connected with a signficiant client who had tried to place him in a managment position. He interviewed very well and offered to work for free until he got his bar results. We hired him, not free, but at a minimal salary. His work was excellent (actually the best work I have seen from a first year in about 15 years) and when he passed the bar, we hired him as an attorney. Most of us never knew his GPA and did not care. If he took time off during law school, which is possible, we woudl not have known nor cared. I have no idea how old he is. What I do know is his analytical skills are execellent and his writing is decent, plus e has connections wiht busniesses that could result in future business for the firm. He could have taken two years off during laws school and we would not give a darn.
Ok, so here's a situational thumbs up for "gap semester" from a practitioner. Thanks for the detailed post. I especially noted the following:
a) first job rose-colored glasses, and especially so if in a big firm. I know a top quartile UCLA law grad who landed way up in a skyscraper in downtown LA at a name firm. I think this person functioned better in school, but was stressed from day 1 on the job, and lasted for 3 years, which is now surprising, knowing that person better. This person eventually went in-house at various financial institutions and has stayed in that general area, with their Calif. bar registration status cycling from active to inactive,
b) I hadn't heard "for free," but what I did hear is that, when there was a big aerospace contraction in SoCal and things were ugly in the mid-90s, a friend said the cards were so stacked in the employer's favor that either attorneys were accepting a deflated salary, or actually taking on paralegal positions. I wasn't living there at the time, but was picking up R.E. mags when visiting, showing bigger condos in Long Beach's nice Belmont Shores or Marina Pacifica areas for $149K, so it must have been REAL bad, and
c) another UCLA grad said the profession's hiring/retaining climate is forgiving for the "exceptional legal mind" and the "rainmaker." I don't know if he was implying those 2 are different types of people, in terms of how they are wired, such that it would be hard to find both those attributes in the same person, i.e. nerdy and bookish versus extroverted gland-hander slightly lacking in legal skills, but somehow passed the bar exam.
What I've seen among my friends is that very few went to large firms, even coming from more blue chip schools. For some reason, a big chunk of them went into insurance defense at insurance companies, and then went to (smaller) firms doing this kind of work and have remained. A couple went into construction defect and other kinds of related matters, such as real estate law, and have also stayed in firms with 10 to 20 lawyers from the beginning. Lastly, some went right into the court system and have worked for the public sector since graduation. I personally do not have any college friends (who went into law) who both went to, and remained in, a large, household name firm.
Although the direct correlation between firm prestige and exit options is overstated by some, it's definitely infinitely easier to "start big and then go small" than doing it the other way around.
Yes, this seems to be the case in business and the top grads in accounting don't want anything other than the Big 4, and not even the tier of firms immediately beneath that which sometimes have industry niches not found in the bigger firms whose client base is "anything big." The belief is that the transition into in-house is much improved by doing it that way. In some cases, I think they're right.
I admit I'm not one of those - I would have no problem finding a cushy government job making $50,000 a year, and then setting up a practice on the side to make more money when I feel like it.
Boy, are you in a for a surprise when you get to learn more about the sad state of the legal job market and "the law school scam", first hand. See you soon on the JD Underground forums.
Therefore, what if, in Year 3, the law student takes a semester off ... to travel, to help a parent, or because they want to, and without a real "professional" excuse ... and then graduate in December, after 3.5 years? Does this mess up their on-campus, or self-administered, career hunting prospects? Is there a lot of "huff and puff" about the treadmill from law school to the bar, in synchronized fashion, that would torque a lot of firms in the legal profession interviewing a law grad that did this?
The firms hiring for the six figure jobs only recruit at a handful of schools and all follow the same pattern:
On campus interviews fall of 2L year (second year of law school)
Summer internship between 2L and 3L year
Full time offers (to successful interns only) fall of 3L year (third year of law school)
If you took some time off after you had an offer, and the firm agreed to delay your start date, it could work. I'd be worried about the message such a request would send to the employer, but it would probably be doable.
If you tried doing something like this before you had an offer you could very well be shutting the door on your on campus recruiting options with the major firms. There are too many students and too few jobs for the big firms to be interested in making any special exceptions.
If you took some time off after you had an offer, and the firm agreed to delay your start date, it could work. I'd be worried about the message such a request would send to the employer, but it would probably be doable.
If you tried doing something like this before you had an offer you could very well be shutting the door on your on campus recruiting options with the major firms. There are too many students and too few jobs for the big firms to be interested in making any special exceptions.
Great post, and you explain when it IS and ISN'T doable. The last paragraph packs a punch.
Another option is a smaller boutique law firm. That is the way I went after starting a a mid/large firm (90 lawyers in 1988 that was a fair sized firm). Then I went to a specialty boutique firm. Only 13-23 lawyers (depending on the time period), but we were the best in our speciality in our area, and for a time, possibly int he country. It was nice because I got a lot of great experience quickly and built a reputation in about five or six years. Eventually I reached the point where I was able to pick and choose clients/cases and either turn the others away or assign them to someone else. That was the high point. However things do not always stay there. Now I am at a mid sized firm (40 lawyers) and back to building up clientele again (some clients folded, my big (huge) client took almost all their work in house).
Anyway a boutique firm can be a good answer for some if you have the credentials to get in (that is the firm I mentioned, we did not hire first years - pretty much not ever). Small boutique firms are often run much like a family. With the plusses and minuses of families (petty jealousy, top people playing favorites based on realtionships rather than on performance, etc). However it can be a lot more pleasant. Frequently they will adjust to your personal needs or desires. (For example, I worked from home in Michigan for many years while practicing with a So. Cal. firm) It is also nice to go into a hearing or meeting and be the most knowlegable person there about that area of law. The downside is you are tied to one business. When that business cycles - well you have better have some savings until it cycles back up.
Incidentally, I went to a top 3 law school (at the time) and interviewed with many of the large firms on campus. I got no offers from those intereviews and that was when the market was great. I was in the top half of my classs, but just barely. Even then they pretty much only wanted people from the top 15% from top ten schools. I got my first job offers through non-campus interviews. Some very high end firms but not from on campus interviews.
Another option is a smaller boutique law firm. That is the way I went after starting a a mid/large firm (90 lawyers in 1988 that was a fair sized firm). Then I went to a specialty boutique firm. Only 13-23 lawyers (depending on the time period), but we were the best in our speciality in our area, and for a time, possibly int he country. It was nice because I got a lot of great experience quickly and built a reputation in about five or six years. Eventually I reached the point where I was able to pick and choose clients/cases and either turn the others away or assign them to someone else. That was the high point. However things do not always stay there. Now I am at a mid sized firm (40 lawyers) and back to building up clientele again (some clients folded, my big (huge) client took almost all their work in house).
Anyway a boutique firm can be a good answer for some if you have the credentials to get in (that is the firm I mentioned, we did not hire first years - pretty much not ever). Small boutique firms are often run much like a family. With the plusses and minuses of families (petty jealousy, top people playing favorites based on realtionships rather than on performance, etc). However it can be a lot more pleasant. Frequently they will adjust to your personal needs or desires. (For example, I worked from home in Michigan for many years while practicing with a So. Cal. firm) It is also nice to go into a hearing or meeting and be the most knowlegable person there about that area of law. The downside is you are tied to one business. When that business cycles - well you have better have some savings until it cycles back up.
Incidentally, I went to a top 3 law school (at the time) and interviewed with many of the large firms on campus. I got no offers from those intereviews and that was when the market was great. I was in the top half of my classs, but just barely. Even then they pretty much only wanted people from the top 15% from top ten schools. I got my first job offers through non-campus interviews. Some very high end firms but not from on campus interviews.
I agree that boutiques are great if (1) you can get them, and (2) you're sure of what you want to specialize in. Bigger definitely isn't necessarily better, it's just leaps and bounds easier to snag a spot in a mid-range NYC Vault firm with a giant SA class, where median-ish grades from top schools are often sufficient.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
!
