What do you say to a recent law school graduate?

[Barrister]

Laid-off lawyers, cast-off consultants
The downturn is sorting the best professional-services firms from the rest


Jan 21st 2010 | NEW YORK
From The Economist print edition

Illustration by David SimondsWHAT do you say to a recent law-school graduate? "A skinny double-shot latte to go, please." From New York to Los Angeles, Edinburgh to Sydney, the downturn of the past two years has hit the legal profession with unprecedented severity. As even some leading law firms struggle for survival, recruitment has dried up. The lucky few who get jobs are often being told to find something else to do for now, and report for duty on some far-off date. The same is true for MBA graduates seeking jobs in management consulting. Even the mighty McKinsey is said to be postponing start dates by several months.

Given that new graduates are the grunts of the professional-services industries, earning less than anyone else and working the longest hours, the lack of demand for their services is the clearest indicator of how bad things are. Although a deeper-than-usual cyclical downturn is largely to blame—and is hitting hardest those firms that specialised in financial-market activities such as mergers and acquisitions, and private equity—it is already clear that there will be long-term structural consequences, not least a growing gap between the best firms and the rest.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15330702

Seeing how we have a few law students here (and plenty of lawyers) I couldn't resist posting this for the opening line.  That being said, the article is very anecdotal with no hard evidence, and says the same kinds of things I've heard about lawfirms for years.  Death of the billable hour, end of partnerships, yada yada yada.  Hasn't happened yet.

[grumbler]

I will dance on the grave of the legal "profession" if it does, though.

[Barrister]

I will dance on the grave of the legal "profession" if it does, though.

[ulmont]

That being said, the article is very anecdotal with no hard evidence, and says the same kinds of things I've heard about lawfirms for years.  Death of the billable hour, end of partnerships, yada yada yada.  Hasn't happened yet.

Yeah.  Not that I wouldn't love the death of the billable hour.

[crazy canuck]

I saw the writing on the wall 15 years ago and went small.  But some legal services are harder to provide without the benefit of the support of a larger firm.  I dont think big firms are dead for that reason but the big firms that try to do everything are a dying breed.

[Barrister]

I saw the writing on the wall 15 years ago and went small.  But some legal services are harder to provide without the benefit of the support of a larger firm.  I dont think big firms are dead for that reason but the big firms that try to do everything are a dying breed.

Thinking back to my time at Malthus' firm, as an articling student in corporate law I could see some advantage to being part of a big firm, being able to offer services, nation-wide, etc.

But as an associate in litigation the entire model doesn't make a lot of sense.  Even the files with very large dollar figures involves really only took a handful of lawyers and staff.  Most of them could be handles by just one lawyer.  The size of the firm caused endless conflicts.  I'm not sure what benefit size brings in litigation.  Which is probably one of the reasons that in other areas of litigation (family and criminal) large firms are pretty much unheard of.

[Josquius]

Meh, law is quite a hard thing to study, a law degree will stand them in better stead in the general jobs market than history grads and the like.

[Barrister]

Meh, law is quite a hard thing to study, a law degree will stand them in better stead in the general jobs market than history grads and the like.

They'll have the pick of coffee bars to work at.

[ulmont]

Meh, law is quite a hard thing to study, a law degree will stand them in better stead in the general jobs market than history grads and the like.

There's no reason to get a law degree unless you want to practice law or become a law professor.  Anything else people tell you is bullshit.

And the choice isn't between law or history.  Here, law is a graduate degree.  You'd be getting an undergrad degree and then going to more school instead of getting a job.

[The Brain]

They can always get simpler jobs in nuclear, fetching uranium and the like.

[Ed Anger]

"Hey, at least you didn't get a history degree!"

[Malthus]

Thinking back to my time at Malthus' firm, as an articling student in corporate law I could see some advantage to being part of a big firm, being able to offer services, nation-wide, etc.

But as an associate in litigation the entire model doesn't make a lot of sense.  Even the files with very large dollar figures involves really only took a handful of lawyers and staff.  Most of them could be handles by just one lawyer.  The size of the firm caused endless conflicts.  I'm not sure what benefit size brings in litigation.  Which is probably one of the reasons that in other areas of litigation (family and criminal) large firms are pretty much unheard of.

Big firms are useful for offering specialized industry services - not that these could not be handled by a small boutique firm (they could, easily) but rather because the big-firm name & address inspire confidence in the industry client.

When you are Pfizer, and there is some problem your in-house team can't fix, you want to go to a lawyer at a big firm, even though they tend to cost a lot more; the feeling is that they have the experience and connections you need.

I have only rarely actually been benefited in some tangible way (other than the name alone)  by having cross-country prescence etc., and that mostly because of the Quebec office. It is nothing compared to the endless conflict hassles. But I could not get the work I get here at a small firm, because the clients would not seek out a small firm.

[The Brain]

When you are Pfizer,

Really, how often does this happen?

[Barrister]

I have only rarely actually been benefited in some tangible way (other than the name alone)  by having cross-country prescence etc., and that mostly because of the Quebec office. It is nothing compared to the endless conflict hassles. But I could not get the work I get here at a small firm, because the clients would not seek out a small firm.

I think you are selling yourself short, and giving too much credit to the name of your firm.  To a global firm like Pfizer, your firm is a pretty small firm.  Certainly no one in the head office could name it.

But a firm like Pfizer is a very sofisticated in terms of purchasing legal services.  It knows who is good in certain areas.

And, IIRC, your firm is really the only big firm that does a substantial amount of IP law.  I thought most of the other firms in the field were mostly smaller firms.

[crazy canuck]

But as an associate in litigation the entire model doesn't make a lot of sense.  Even the files with very large dollar figures involves really only took a handful of lawyers and staff.  Most of them could be handles by just one lawyer.  The size of the firm caused endless conflicts.  I'm not sure what benefit size brings in litigation.  Which is probably one of the reasons that in other areas of litigation (family and criminal) large firms are pretty much unheard of.

These are all the reasons I went small.  But litigation is a small part of the business a large firm does.