The forum is gone. Looks like the admin threw in the towel and is letting the domain registration expire today. At least we still have both TLS and JDU. Yay.
Showing posts with label TLS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TLS. Show all posts
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Law applicants are VERY special snowflakes
From the National Law Journal article headed Future law school applicants are wealthier, more self-confident:
The aspiring lawyers rated themselves more highly than the typical college student regarding academic ability, public speaking, drive to achieve and tendency to socialize with students outside their own race. Of the eventual law school applicants, 87 percent reported that they had "above average" academic abilities, compared to 69 percent of all college freshman.
One of the sad things about incompetent people, besides having them as coworkers, is they don't realize they're incompetent. After the spate of bad news last week, law school administrators can relax knowing there IS a sucker born every minute, a sucker receptive to sophisticated marketing programs and who can shut out everything contrary; they're unreachable.
Granted, *successful* law applicants have better credentials than an average college graduate, but we are not dealing with future investment bankers, here. Or engineers. Or medical doctors.
These individuals are the same aimless idiots who majored in liberal arts and groupthink, took gut courses, and intend to "do" International Law. They rack up posts on TLS and patronize Scott Bullock. Armed with their 155 LSAT, they and their like-minded cohort head to some TTR sh*thole and are never heard from again unless they screw up. Some even succeed for a while, but when reality kicks them in the head, as it almost always does, the grasshopper has pissed away everything he made in biglaw and is too proud to pick himself up off the floor (see the lawyer).
Granted, if you're either connected or won the genetic lottery then you can hold your head up high. Otherwise, know that fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Plug for a new forum
I'm encouraging readers to visit and participate in JD Junkyard. JDU has jumped the shark, IMHO. While I'm not an old-timer, I joined JDU when it was still a vibrant hangout for disaffected lawyers and law graduates. Lately, it's been overrun by trolls and drooling nitwits. There is still quality content, but like TLS, it's not worth wading through the crap to get to it.
Please note that I have no association with JD Junkyard and was not asked to publicize it.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Wall Street Journal article on lawyer TTTemp jobs
The WSJ just did an article on the rise of Contract/Temp attorneys (I initially put attorney in quotes and then removed them). It's behind a paywall but accessible if you come in through Google News. Interestingly, the WSJ put contract in quotes. Whatever.
There's nothing new here to anyone who reads scamblogs, particularly Tom the Temp. In fact, the WSJ was itself probably the first mainstream publication to call attention to the scam, with its landmark Hard Case: Job Market Wanes for U.S. Lawyers in September 2007. That article immortalized Scott Bullock of Big Debt, Small Law and should have been sufficient to knock sense into anyone considering law school. Should have been.
The piece features a 37-year-old American U grad and describes his life as a coder. Dickensian working conditions, $50K annual compensation, lengthy unemployment, and assignments that end abruptly. The WSJ quotes NALP in saying that 10% of private practice jobs graduates accepted last year were temporary. Paul Campos, who I commented on here, would beg to differ on the 10%. Further, he notes that NALP itself collects data on but does not publish distinctions between permanent and temporary work.
The change to temporary attorneys is driven by cost-conscious clients of marquee law firms who probably resented paying for green associates in the first place. The Journal is a bit behind the times in not mentioning offshoring, onshoring to U.S. backwaters, or technology that will dispense with law grads altogether, but on the whole it's a respectable effort that accurately portrays a segment of the presTTTigious legal "profession" circa 2011.
Speaking of Bullock, I'm about 99% certain that he is the poster areyouinsane in the TLS thread http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=157855 no doubt inspired by the WSJ article. Writing style and anecdotes are identical; not many people begin their sentences with "You see,". He's apparently moving to Turkey. Naturally, the TLS rocket scientists suspect he's a flame, even as they content themselves in the knowledge that this temporary attorney nastiness only happens to "other" people.
There's nothing new here to anyone who reads scamblogs, particularly Tom the Temp. In fact, the WSJ was itself probably the first mainstream publication to call attention to the scam, with its landmark Hard Case: Job Market Wanes for U.S. Lawyers in September 2007. That article immortalized Scott Bullock of Big Debt, Small Law and should have been sufficient to knock sense into anyone considering law school. Should have been.
The piece features a 37-year-old American U grad and describes his life as a coder. Dickensian working conditions, $50K annual compensation, lengthy unemployment, and assignments that end abruptly. The WSJ quotes NALP in saying that 10% of private practice jobs graduates accepted last year were temporary. Paul Campos, who I commented on here, would beg to differ on the 10%. Further, he notes that NALP itself collects data on but does not publish distinctions between permanent and temporary work.
The change to temporary attorneys is driven by cost-conscious clients of marquee law firms who probably resented paying for green associates in the first place. The Journal is a bit behind the times in not mentioning offshoring, onshoring to U.S. backwaters, or technology that will dispense with law grads altogether, but on the whole it's a respectable effort that accurately portrays a segment of the presTTTigious legal "profession" circa 2011.
Speaking of Bullock, I'm about 99% certain that he is the poster areyouinsane in the TLS thread http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=157855 no doubt inspired by the WSJ article. Writing style and anecdotes are identical; not many people begin their sentences with "You see,". He's apparently moving to Turkey. Naturally, the TLS rocket scientists suspect he's a flame, even as they content themselves in the knowledge that this temporary attorney nastiness only happens to "other" people.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
The Economist magazine agrees with me?
I see the Economist and I are on the same page. Granted I'm mosiach, Warren Buffet, and the Delphic Oracle combined, but it's gratifying to have my convicTTTions validated by such an august entity.
There is nothing new, here, to anyone who follows the legal industry even casually. The main import is that it appeared in a widely-read and respected publication. The only reason I'm blogging about it is I started a draft a while ago and didn't want to let it languish. Which is a piss poor reason. Whatever.
The article leads off with Howrey LLP's dissolution. The firm's circling the drain led to much breathless (and witless) writing on ATL. The ultimate cause of death was partners defecting because profits weren't at their accustomed >$1MM/partner/yr. Pundits, including The Economist, can wax all they want on structural changes in the industry, but the firm was killed by old-fashioned greed and mismanagement, same as from time immemorial. Unlike a typical business failure, Howrey was never insolvent, and its investors (equity partners) landed on their feet elsewhere, each presumably with his or her book of business intact.
There's a much better article in the Washington Post that traces the firm's rise and fall. It also discusses structural changes, but the main one is the demise of the general partnership structure that bound partners to the firm and limited risk taking. Seems quaint, but around the time I was in school, associates who had been offered a partnership were advised to check the firm's financial condition, especially unfunded pension obligations. Also see Finley, Crumble.
I note Howrey set up "a back office in Pune, India, to provide low-cost legal research." Snort.
The interesting aspect of the Economist article is its predictions on what firms are likely to thrive in today's economy.
My favorite part of the Economist article was the discussion on protectionism. Other countries severely or completely prohibit foreigners from practicing local law. Meanwhile, over at the ABA, they're not only exporting legal work as fast as they can — until it blows up in their faces — but also subjecting the locals to CLE, mandatory pro bono, bar dues, etc.
How I wish this were the real profession I thought I was entering.
"Ultimately, lawyering is becoming more of a business than a profession."Well, hit me with a 2x4. Ever wonder why my blog has Profession in quotation marks? Funny, this article is dated May 2011; it's about 30 years late.
There is nothing new, here, to anyone who follows the legal industry even casually. The main import is that it appeared in a widely-read and respected publication. The only reason I'm blogging about it is I started a draft a while ago and didn't want to let it languish. Which is a piss poor reason. Whatever.
The article leads off with Howrey LLP's dissolution. The firm's circling the drain led to much breathless (and witless) writing on ATL. The ultimate cause of death was partners defecting because profits weren't at their accustomed >$1MM/partner/yr. Pundits, including The Economist, can wax all they want on structural changes in the industry, but the firm was killed by old-fashioned greed and mismanagement, same as from time immemorial. Unlike a typical business failure, Howrey was never insolvent, and its investors (equity partners) landed on their feet elsewhere, each presumably with his or her book of business intact.
There's a much better article in the Washington Post that traces the firm's rise and fall. It also discusses structural changes, but the main one is the demise of the general partnership structure that bound partners to the firm and limited risk taking. Seems quaint, but around the time I was in school, associates who had been offered a partnership were advised to check the firm's financial condition, especially unfunded pension obligations. Also see Finley, Crumble.
I note Howrey set up "a back office in Pune, India, to provide low-cost legal research." Snort.
The interesting aspect of the Economist article is its predictions on what firms are likely to thrive in today's economy.
- Elite New York-based firms such as Sullivan & Cromwell that restrict their locations to business centers
- Smaller, highly-specialized firms such as Wachtell that can command a price premium, or, as one of our salesdroids used to call it, a "sustainable competitive advantage"
- Certain global firms such as Baker & McKenzie that have a viable business model and management that can execute it (my emphasis)
My favorite part of the Economist article was the discussion on protectionism. Other countries severely or completely prohibit foreigners from practicing local law. Meanwhile, over at the ABA, they're not only exporting legal work as fast as they can — until it blows up in their faces — but also subjecting the locals to CLE, mandatory pro bono, bar dues, etc.
How I wish this were the real profession I thought I was entering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)