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.
Yep, no one wants to train new employees - and who can blame employers? It's a buyer's market in every sense of the phrase.
Robyn, I have a question for you: based on your experience, what would you estimate the average plaintiff's firm partner salary to be in the Jacksonville area? I am asking in terms of upper tier work, e.g., catastrophic injuries and not volume work like PIP, slip and falls, lizard bites, etc. How would that compare to the same on the defense side?
Just curious what your estimates would be. I've never seen any data specifically for this market(although the last I checked the average partner salary in Florida was approximately $120,000 per the Florida Bar).
This is a tough question to answer for a few reasons. First - we never practiced law out of Jacksonville - only in Miami. And we stopped practicing quite a while ago (have only handled family investments since then). And - although jury verdicts are higher now - there are probably fewer of them - especially in my husband's specialty area - medical malpractice. Also - there weren't any rules capping attorneys' fees in personal injury cases when we were practicing (40% was the norm - now there is a sliding scale where the larger the verdict is - the smaller the fee you can take).
Also - "partnership" frequently isn't what it seems to be on the surface. In many trial lawyer firms - the senior guy - the one who's the big rainmaker and the great trial lawyer takes home most of the money compared to his "partners" (who in some cases aren't even real partners - you sometimes see these facts of life in writing when law firms break up and wind up in litigation). Really great trial lawyers have huge egos (some have huge money needs as well) - and there usually isn't enough "ego room" or money in a law firm for more than one of them. Which is why many talented young trial lawyers will join an established firm - but leave when they are pretty young to go out on their own.
Note that this has been the norm in big deal personal injury firms in Florida for a long time. The "white shoe" law firms in the US used to be very different. You busted your a** for 8 years - made partner - and then when you were about 55 - you could start to coast on the work of younger partners. Today - the "white shoe" law firms more closely resemble how big deal personal injury firms in Florida work. Not many people make partner even after they bill a million hours a week for 8 years - nor can older partners coast on the efforts of younger partners once they reach a certain age. If you don't produce - your income suffers.
All that said - at the top tier around the state - the top partners/rainmakers/great trial lawyers will easily make $1 million+/year (except perhaps in a very bad year). Some will make tens or hundreds of millions in cases like the tobacco cases. And those lawyers who are important to the firm in terms of various other things will probably make mid-6 figures or more. When my husband was in practice with one great trial lawyer (he left another great trial lawyer who paid him peanuts) - the top guy took home 70% - my husband took home 20% - and another guy took home 10% of net. Note that my husband wasn't a great trial lawyer (he was very very good - but not great). But he was excellent at case intake and getting expert witnesses and preparing cases and taking depositions. He also spoke fluent Spanish (important in Miami). His 20% amounted to mid-6 figures for quite a few years. At some point - he left his partner (for personal reasons having nothing to do with ego or money) - and went out on his own. When he was on his own - he got one really really big case that didn't settle - and associated a great trial lawyer to work with him at trial. Good move. A case that could easily have been lost wound up in a large jury verdict.
A man has to know his limitations - and my husband did. OTOH - I think he still - after all these years - holds the county record for a jury verdict in Hendry County that wasn't a crop damage case. It was a medical malpractice case - hard to win anywhere - especially in Hendry County. But he associated local counsel to help him during the trial (the lawyer he associated with knew every single person in the jury pool!). Like I said - my husband was a very good trial lawyer - just not a great one. I don't know if you've ever seen Good Will Hunting. But it's like in that movie. When Professor Lambeau - an excellent mathematician - recognizes that Matt Damon is a genius in mathematics - and that he will never be able to do what Matt Damon can do.
IMO - being a great trial lawyer has nothing to do with academic credentials. It's a gift as far as I'm concerned. Like Matt Damon had - or a surgeon with "great hands" has. OTOH - even if you have a gift for being a trial lawyer - it's kind of hard to set up shop right out of law school - get even a few really good cases - and - more important - the money to prepare them correctly (a medical malpractice case that might have cost $25k to bring to trial 25 years ago will now easily cost over $100k). I think if any young lawyer has an itch to become a trial lawyer - a good place to start right out of school is in the public sector as a prosecuting attorney (my husband and I both started out in the DA's office in Philadelphia - my husband was trying homicides after < 2 years). Guess you could start out in the public defender's office too - but I would always worry about finding out that I was a lousy lawyer while defending people (as opposed to prosecuting them). If you're good at prosecuting - you can then seek a job in a good personal injury firm.
My husband didn't do defense work - but I did - although certainly not exclusively (as an appellate lawyer). And I hated dealing with insurance companies as clients. They were always trying to nickel and dime me to death. Like they'd hire a competitor of mine if his hourly rate was $10/hour less than mine - even if he fudged his hours to make up for the low-ball hourly bid. Also - a lot of defense lawyers got their business going to insurance conventions where they wined and dined and did less savory things for not very well paid insurance people who could throw them bread and butter business. Totally not my cup of tea. OTOH - I also did defense work for some large national/multi-national corporations - mostly in the area of products liability. These companies had large/huge self-insured retention limits - so I was dealing mostly with lawyers within the corporations - not some insurance guy going to a convention in Orlando. I enjoyed dealing with these clients/lawyers a lot (they were very professional). Even if it meant I had to travel to Midland Michigan in the winter (Dow Corning). Also - it wasn't bad dealing with insurance companies when I was handling complicated big dollar insurance coverage issues and dealing with the high level lawyers within an insurance company who had sent the case my way.
Finally - I am not sure that no one is willing to teach lawyers these days. My first boss at the DA's office in Philadelphia really took the time to teach me how to write (via the red pen). I did the same when I had employees. You can't teach someone how to be a great trial lawyer - but you can teach someone how to write a simple English sentence . Robyn
Has John Morgan even tried a case in the last 5 years? Judging from what I've read - I tend to doubt it. Could be wrong.
I did some reading to refresh my memory. Morgan & Morgan used to be Morgan Colling & Gilbert. Colling (who died a few years ago at a very young age) & Gilbert left the firm - allegedly under amicable circumstances (and also allegedly with some money changing hands) in 2005 - along with some lawyers and staff - to start their own firm. Note that I have no idea whether Colling and/or Gilbert tried a lot of cases - or how good they were/are.
Morgan's wife was then added as the second Morgan (don't know if she was even in the firm before then). Although her academic credentials seem good - she isn't a trial lawyer at all. The firm's web site lists her areas of specialty as corporate and business law.
The apparent reason for the split was that the departing partners wanted a smaller more boutique law firm specializing in larger personal injury cases - and the huge growth at the firm wasn't their cup of tea. But who knows what the real story is???
But even if they weren't - you know what. If I had a serious or catastrophic injury - I wouldn't want to go to a law firm where the senior partner seems to spend more time working on ads than trying cases - a firm with about 80 lawyers - most of whom are probably only average - a firm that seems to deal with PIP cases and chiropractors as well as trying to handle the big ones. I'd want the kind of firm that I used to have as clients (as an appellate lawyer - a lot of my clients were law firms). Smaller boutique law firms that only do big or huge cases.
A firm like this one (although it was never a client of mine):
You've never seen Stuart Grossman on a billboard or on TV (maybe they do some advertising - but I've never seen it). Because he doesn't have to do that stuff to get cases. And I doubt you'll ever see his firm handling a PIP case - unless it's for his mother . I know Stuart (and his partner - Neal Roth - as well). They're about 10 years younger than I am - and I reckon there are lawyers 20 years younger than I am who I don't know - have never heard of - who are like Stuart and Neal.
I mean it's like if you have cancer - do you go to a medical clinic where there are dozens of docs and thousand of patients - and most are GPs treating everything from high blood pressure to diabetes to flu - or do you go to the cancer specialist? Note that with plaintiffs' personal injury work - you don't even have to worry about the cost - because plaintiffs' PI lawyers work on contingent fees.
BTW - one criticism I read of Morgan & Morgan in these reviews was that it charged clients 18%/year interest on costs it paid in clients' cases - from the time it paid the costs - until the date it recovered them (if it ever recovered them). I have no idea whether this is true. But - if it is - it is totally unconscionable IMO. Like I've mentioned previously - it's very easy to run up $100+ in costs in a medical malpractice case these days. And for a case to take 2-3 years from start to finish. So a client will pay interest on these costs? I had frankly never heard about any lawyer doing anything like this before. But - like I said - if Morgan & Morgan does this - well I just don't think it's right. Robyn
The point was to recommended a book that offered insight into how a successful PI lawyer thinks. There are, of course, many measures of success, but I think everyone can agree Mr. Morgan has done well financially. Incidentally, the book is an easy read, loaded with useful information for folks that run a practice.
The point was to recommended a book that offered insight into how a successful PI lawyer thinks. There are, of course, many measures of success, but I think everyone can agree Mr. Morgan has done well financially. Incidentally, the book is an easy read, loaded with useful information for folks that run a practice.
Do you think a doctor who makes a lot of money running a pill mill is a good role model for doctors? I really don't know if Mr. Morgan is the lawyer equivalent of that - but - if he is - that is not being a successful lawyer IMO. Robyn
Do you think a doctor who makes a lot of money running a pill mill is a good role model for doctors? I really don't know if Mr. Morgan is the lawyer equivalent of that - but - if he is - that is not being a successful lawyer IMO. Robyn
Pretty sure she didn't say anything about poisoning anyone.... Robyn's point seems beyond your grasp.
Further, her overall points on the importance of ethics and what it takes to be a talented, or more precisely a successful, trial attorney--I would like to think is correct. From my limited experience it is correct: Talented attorneys can waste judge's (and clerk's and opposing counsel's) time (even **** them off), and they can mishandle certain matters. But when it matters they can step up and shine to convince a jury.
From my perspective and relating this back to FCSL, those shining moments have little to do with your legal education. Granted, getting on the stage may.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FCSL_08
Wow - quite a bit of activity on this thread lately.
The whole point of bashing FCSL is so that potential students will not go there and waste three years of their lives and be forced into a life of indentured servitude. A J.D. from that poop hole is practically worthless.
Yes, the system is screwed up (i.e., schools suckling at the teat of fed loan programs), but FCSL's tuition is in to top 15% in the nation despite being a fourth tier joke that admits almost 1,000 student per year; I therefore consider FCSL among the worst of the worst and pity anyone wasting their time there.
This is coming from one who graduated with VERY high marks and was on law review.
P.S. Is everyone aware that Coastal was sued in a class action by former students last week?
Bashing FCSL with vacuous statements of class size--FCSL has about as many students as Harvard. (Again, other than the obvious potential earning capacity after graduation--the difference between students being no more than an LSAT score--or the election of some students to go into debt and others not to for their education.)
Or whining "that you did everything right and you still don't have a job" is the pathetic voice of an entitled mind, or more likely, a spoiled brat not getting his or her way and then blaming someone else for their own risky decision. There are no guarantees in life. The competition for lawyers should be difficult. The alternative would be creating (further) artificial barriers to passing the bar and carving out a cartel for the select few. I find that utterly repulsive in a free, capitalistic, society. Specifically, easier access to the profession and high competition among attorneys should be cherished. It rewards talent (top attorneys), punishes mediocrity (run of the mill attorneys), and provides the incentive for less expensive options for those in need (young attorneys and self-help services).
The "good old days" for attorneys, quite frankly, just sounds like a racket—for the benefit attorneys as a class. reminds of union work. And don't liberals love anti-trust law anyway?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by 904jax
Here is a piece on the Florida Coastal lawsuit mentioned by FCSL_08:
So isVillanova (tier 1) and dozen or so other schools. The suit will be class action with dozens of schools to be added to the list as the months go on…
Personally, I find it funny. Liberal schools teach students to sue everyone, to support a vast (unnecessary or desired) legal industry in the (false) name of "promoting justice, equality, and happy horsesh*t", and then get sued themselves.
It's surprising to me that so many kids today seem to ignore the job market and continue to enroll in law schools, even when the evidence clearly shows that lower-tier schools especially are not giving them a great chance at being employed.
I think I thoroughly addressed this point… But here is a refresher: Government monopoly schools fail students in every way possible but students are forced to attend anyway. Property owners are ripped off by ludicrously high taxes paying for crap k-12 government monopoly schooling. Kids can't balance a check book coming out of high school, if they even graduate, but they think altruism is good and that lawyers and government workers—as opposed to engineers, mechanics, plumbers, private business, etc—make the world work.
When it comes time to get a job. Kids go to college instead, and they study underwater fire prevention at some liberal arts university that reinforces the useless lessons he or she was FORCED to learn in crap government monopoly k-12 school.
Surprise, surprise, kids come out of college with useless undergraduate degree—even more fearful of doing what they never have—working. Instead of the "w" word, they opt for more useless education, known as higher ed, that will let them put off the real world even longer. They listen to ivory tower elitist egg head and think—lawyers save us from poverty and the menacing daily threat of global warming. The egg head professor, preaching crap instead having a real job himself, relies on the gov't subsidized school loan tit to keep his worthless job in existence.
By this time the tax payer has been thoroughly ripped off—but don't worry--the gov't isn't done screwing the few tax payers left in this country. So of course, the gov't subsidizes the kid's worthless law degree and in many cases offers to pay the bill if the kid works for the gov't. The kid then graduates, realizes there is no more school to attend. Getting a job becomes "impossible"--even the gov't make work ones--so the kid throws a temper tantrum and blames everyone but himself or herself and the government imposed system (it would be against the politically-correct-secular-religion of government worshiping to do that).
PS. Cliff Notes Version:
Kids that go to trade school get made fun of. Kids that go $100K in debt for law school are praised. The gov't fu*ks the taxpayer no matter what. The exponentially increasing number of people on the dole, directly or indirectly, make out like bandits (for now until their guaranteed pensions and benefits and salaries go the way of Greece in the not too distant future).
I don't know anything about Florida Coastal, in fact, the only reason why I originally viewed this thread was because we have thought about moving to Jacksonville and I did practice law so it was natural for me to glance at it.
But I will say that I think the prime reason that kids continue to enroll in schools with a doubtful chance of employment, boils down to the idea of, "What else the hell am I going to do?" I would think that even at Florida Coastal, you still have three years of a grinding existence, while also incurring a lot of debt in the process.
But the economy today has lost so many jobs (due to a lot of factors that don't have to be repeated here) that the options for kids are limited and a professional degree somehow seems better than an undergrad degree where your prospects are going to include only retail or Starbucks.
The real world doesn't revolve around bromides from talk radio (sorry fcsl 13) but rather hard choices with limited options. It has nothing to do with "Government monopoly schools fail students in every way possible but students are forced to attend anyway. "
Nobody forces kids to attend lower-tier law schools, rather they are just doing the best they can with what are becoming increasingly limited career options.
I would think that even at Florida Coastal, you still have three years of a grinding existence, while also incurring a lot of debt in the process.
.
There is nothing "grinding" about the "existence" of my classmates borrowing tens of thousands of dollars beyond what the gov't says they need to "survive." They don't even know how much they are borrowing! none of them could tell you. gov't loans is borrowing for monkeys. just click here.....done.
I know, personally, dozens of FCSL students (same at any college) buying fake bo*bs, cars, vacations, i-phones, drugs, and eating out every night of the week and boozing every weekend on tax payer subsidized loans....
So no-they are NOT making "rather hard choices with limited options" or "just doing the best they can with what are becoming increasingly limited career options"
They are on the dole and loving it! The gov't is an enabler.
I have no sympathy when their vacation ends and they find no job because they have not opened a book. However, when they all study "international law" and want to "Africa" to do some "real good" in the world.... That isn't "talk radio" convincing them to do that--its altruistic morons that have indoctrinated an entire generation into thinking "profits" are bad and working for business is "evil"...
Trust me--I get mass "occupy wal-street" emails from fellow students--and I also hear them speak in class... None of them deserve any sympathy whatsoever!
ps. learn the difference between k-12 and grad school. the former (k-12) certainly is compulsory and it certainly is a government monopoly and it certainly is a failure and it certainly is a rip off. the latter--grad school--although not compulsory is certainly also a rip off--at least for those who pay taxes in Florida. In-state tuition is only cheaper to florida residents -->because that florida (resident) student has his florida neighbor pay for the rest of the tuition via state law (taxes)! what a croc a sh*t...
Here's the skinny: argue the moral imperatives of law school and the broader social implications until you're blue in the face, but the very unfortunate truth about FloCo is that practitioners (i.e., the people that interview and hire law school grads) are distrustful of FloCo, and so grads face a presumption of incompetence once they're out in job market. Not only will FloCo grads not get call-backs, they will not even get an interview. They will be lucky to even get a rejection letter when they mass mail their resumes out.
Mediocre students from well-perceived law schools will almost always get the good jobs ahead of even the best and brightest from FloCo. Is it right? Is it fair? Probably not. But it's the reality.
By all means, please preach the FloCo gospel to any and all that will listen. Impassioned arguments in defense of the underdog FloCo are always entertaining. But realize that the scarlet letter of a Florida Coastal diploma is a difficult burden for most to bear, and will push most into indentured servitude at jobs they will hate and for which they will receive no respect, prestige, or personal fulfillment.
I say these things from personal experience. I am one of the lucky few with a decent job (which I've had since graduation), but I have many, many law school friends that have very sad stories. Working in retail (folding clothes). Joining the military (non-JAG). Teaching middle school.
These are fine jobs, but none require a J.D., and certainly not one from a school where the tuition is $35,000/year.
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.
. Robyn
. I know Stuart (and his partner - Neal Roth - as well). They're about 10 years younger than I am - and I reckon there are lawyers 20 years younger than I am who I don't know - have never heard of - who are like Stuart and Neal.
