QuoteLaid-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.
I will dance on the grave of the legal "profession" if it does, though.
Quote from: grumbler on January 22, 2010, 12:41:28 PM
I will dance on the grave of the legal "profession" if it does, though.
:mad:
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2010, 12:38:00 PMThat 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.
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2010, 01:13:25 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Tyr on January 22, 2010, 01:27:42 PM
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.
:yes:
They'll have the pick of coffee bars to work at.
Quote from: Tyr on January 22, 2010, 01:27:42 PM
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.
They can always get simpler jobs in nuclear, fetching uranium and the like.
"Hey, at least you didn't get a history degree!"
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2010, 01:25:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on January 22, 2010, 01:59:37 PM
When you are Pfizer,
Really, how often does this happen?
Quote from: Malthus on January 22, 2010, 01:59:37 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2010, 01:25:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on January 22, 2010, 01:59:37 PM
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 think that used to be the case but BB is right. Large clients dont necessarily look for large law firms anymore. They look to who is best for that particular problem.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2010, 02:21:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 22, 2010, 01:59:37 PM
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 think that used to be the case but BB is right. Large clients dont necessarily look for large law firms anymore. They look to who is best for that particular problem.
I think it's probably true for wealthy, but largely legally unsophisticated, clients. They have just been sued, they've never really been involved in litigation before, so they call up, say, Torys because it's a big name.
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2010, 02:31:36 PM
I think it's probably true for wealthy, but largely legally unsophisticated, clients. They have just been sued, they've never really been involved in litigation before, so they call up, say, Torys because it's a big name.
Probably right. And I am happy to leave those clients to the large firms.
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2010, 02:11:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 22, 2010, 01:59:37 PM
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.
Again, I don't do IP - I do regulatory work.
The issue is not "head office", it is the Canadian sub - who naturally is better informed of Canadian business and legal conditions.
Most IP work is similar to most family and litigation - large numbers of small files, which can be done very economically by smaller firms.
In regulatory, and business law generally, size does seem to matter. Can't say that it *should* matter, I'm merely saying that it *does*.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2010, 02:21:20 PM
I think that used to be the case but BB is right. Large clients dont necessarily look for large law firms anymore. They look to who is best for that particular problem.
Heh. Depends entirely on your field. In litigation, that's probably true. Not so much in many sorts of business law - explaining why big firms are, you know, still around. ;)
Given the serious changes that are going to take place in the law over the next few decades, it's going to be tough on lawyers.
The billable hour system is pretty retarded and I predict it will be replaced quickly once something better comes up. The problem is that it is like democracy in the famous Churchill's quote - so far nothing better (on a global basis) has been invented to measure the work.
However, it is more and more common to have hard caps (as opposed to just fee estimates) in the transactions here in Poland, which essentially spells the death of the billable hour, economically, since it is fairly certain up-front that the caps will be easily hit. Plus, the blended rate is very popular these days, which also in a sense upsets the partner-associate balance.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2010, 01:13:25 PM
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.
It really depends on the area, and the client's profile. Though I think that if you are going big, you have to go multinational - that way you can get clients who are also multinational and want that McDonald's/Starbucks experience across the board, rather than having to worry about finding a different lawfirm in every jurisdiction. But a big generalist firm that has no international presence is indeed going down.
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2010, 02:31:36 PMI think it's probably true for wealthy, but largely legally unsophisticated, clients. They have just been sued, they've never really been involved in litigation before, so they call up, say, Torys because it's a big name.
It's not just that. Bigger firms have better cross-selling capabilities. I mean, at a certain level you do not really compete with quality of legal service per se any more since any competitor can provide pretty much the top notch level of service. So you start competing with either fees and/or marketing you do.
Personally, I think the biggest shift in the recent years is really a move from this traditional "lawfirms-are-special" business model into what is essentially a corporation offering a "product". In that sense, smaller lawfirms are a dying breed, because they have a harder time switching to this new mindset.
When I first entered the profession, now more than a decade ago, the talk was all about how the big firm model of practice was on its way out, together with the worship of billable hours. Moreover, lawyers were all going to embrace a more sustainable lifestyle, and part-time practice would become common.
Quote from: Malthus on January 22, 2010, 03:04:54 PM
Not so much in many sorts of business law - explaining why big firms are, you know, still around. ;)
I agree completely and if you go back and reread my posts you will find that is what I have been saying. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on January 22, 2010, 03:36:53 PM
When I first entered the profession, now more than a decade ago, the talk was all about how the big firm model of practice was on its way out, together with the worship of billable hours. Moreover, lawyers were all going to embrace a more sustainable lifestyle, and part-time practice would become common.
And you belong to the group that didnt follow that trend. :P
Quote from: ulmont on January 22, 2010, 01:29:52 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 22, 2010, 01:27:42 PM
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.
True, I didn't consider that its different over there. I was just thinking in terms of European law students.
Most law students I know are wanting to get into politics or working for the government rather than actually taking the bar.
Quote from: Malthus on January 22, 2010, 03:36:53 PM
When I first entered the profession, now more than a decade ago, the talk was all about how the big firm model of practice was on its way out, together with the worship of billable hours. Moreover, lawyers were all going to embrace a more sustainable lifestyle, and part-time practice would become common.
Dream denied. :(
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2010, 03:11:38 PM
The billable hour system is pretty retarded and I predict it will be replaced quickly once something better comes up. The problem is that it is like democracy in the famous Churchill's quote - so far nothing better (on a global basis) has been invented to measure the work.
However, it is more and more common to have hard caps (as opposed to just fee estimates) in the transactions here in Poland, which essentially spells the death of the billable hour, economically, since it is fairly certain up-front that the caps will be easily hit. Plus, the blended rate is very popular these days, which also in a sense upsets the partner-associate balance.
When I was in private practice, and in a small firm, I was doing as much as I could on a flat-rate fee ($1500 to run your impaired trial, which was ridiculously cheap in retrospect). Seemed to work pretty well for 90% of files.
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2010, 04:07:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2010, 03:11:38 PM
The billable hour system is pretty retarded and I predict it will be replaced quickly once something better comes up. The problem is that it is like democracy in the famous Churchill's quote - so far nothing better (on a global basis) has been invented to measure the work.
However, it is more and more common to have hard caps (as opposed to just fee estimates) in the transactions here in Poland, which essentially spells the death of the billable hour, economically, since it is fairly certain up-front that the caps will be easily hit. Plus, the blended rate is very popular these days, which also in a sense upsets the partner-associate balance.
When I was in private practice, and in a small firm, I was doing as much as I could on a flat-rate fee ($1500 to run your impaired trial, which was ridiculously cheap in retrospect). Seemed to work pretty well for 90% of files.
Massive difference between a criminal and a civil case, even when both are complicated. Criminal cases generally have less surprises, less obstruction from your opposition, fewer seriously contested issues. I can look at a police report and be fairly confident in how the case will likely play out, even assuming it goes to trial. It's much more difficult to do in the civil context, making the ability to gauge an appropriate fee risky for the civil practitioner in that if the case turns out to be more complicated or the opposition more stingy or ornary, the lawyer is going to do a shit ton more work, making the case less profitable or even a money loser.
Quote from: ulmont on January 22, 2010, 01:29:52 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 22, 2010, 01:27:42 PM
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.
Here, law is an undergraduate degree which only the best students can study. Being a law graduate means you're the cream of the crop. A lot of them end up in senior managerial positions.
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2010, 12:38:00 PM
QuoteLaid-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.
If I were a university student, my question would be, if not finance, law, or consulting, then what? These careers may not be as attractive as they were before, but they're still some of the most attractive careers, compared to others.
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2010, 12:38:00 PM
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.
I can add some more anecdotal evidence. I know a guy who's got a good degree in law and has been offered a job. He signed a contract for it at the end of 2008, he was meant to start round about then. The law firm has since postponed his starting date by 6 months three times. They still want him but they've not had any new people join in 18 months.
Also my brother says that the law firm he uses fired everyone who had between 3-5 years experience (something like that anyway), so there's a bit of a generation gap between people hired a long time ago who've got lots of experience and a new generation who are getting their experience now.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 24, 2010, 09:30:53 AM
Here, law is an undergraduate degree which only the best students can study. Being a law graduate means you're the cream of the crop. A lot of them end up in senior managerial positions.
Here Law is something you take when you want to enter the civil service or to have a college degree and cannot do math. Very, very few people aim to become or end up being lawyers.
Although truth be told, that last part is also the case in engineering. Out of the dozen or so friends who took engineering only two of us actually work as such (and the other guy is a civil engineer about to become unemployed). The rest ended up doing sales, acquisitions, management, safety, ISO compliance and other truly boring stuff.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 24, 2010, 09:50:43 AMIf I were a university student, my question would be, if not finance, law, or consulting, then what? These careers may not be as attractive as they were before, but they're still some of the most attractive careers, compared to others.
The highest
average salaries after ten years for university graduates here were students of "business engineering" (those guys have part engineering, part business management skills). Medicine, law, business, computer science, natural sciences, maths, engineering are all doing quite well too.
Law has a huge spread in income here. If you start working for some international law firm, you will earn tremendous amounts of money, if you start working for the state it's not bad, but if you start your own little law practice, most lawyers need five to ten years to earn good money. And even then, they don't necessesarily surpass other academics that are self-employed.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 24, 2010, 09:50:43 AM
If I were a university student, my question would be, if not finance, law, or consulting, then what? These careers may not be as attractive as they were before, but they're still some of the most attractive careers, compared to others.
Maybe the one you enjoy or at least are good at? ;)
Anyway, if money is what you are interested in letting top earners guide your path is a fairly stupid thing to do. In my experience those make a lot of money because of their contacts, not their particular set of skills. Choosing a career where the average guy makes more seems sensible in that (terribly depressing) respect.
I'll be fine.
Quote from: Iormlund on January 24, 2010, 03:12:57 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 24, 2010, 09:50:43 AM
If I were a university student, my question would be, if not finance, law, or consulting, then what? These careers may not be as attractive as they were before, but they're still some of the most attractive careers, compared to others.
Maybe the one you enjoy or at least are good at? ;)
Anyway, if money is what you are interested in letting top earners guide your path is a fairly stupid thing to do. In my experience those make a lot of money because of their contacts, not their particular set of skills. Choosing a career where the average guy makes more seems sensible in that (terribly depressing) respect.
Supply must match demand for deals to happen. Doing what you enjoy and what you are good at is like producing and selling whatever goods that you happen to have, rather than what the market really wants. I'm not saying that one should do things that he sucks at :P But the reality is, only a few lucky ones enjoy what they do. Most people do things they don't mind doing.
The billable hour is already dead for low end legal work (entry level litigation, conveyancing, wills etc) where anyone who wants to compete has to commodotise and make their profits by cutting costs through IT and concentrating on bulk.
At the high end, the billable hour won't die because clients are prepared to pay for quality and specialists won't do work on a fixed fee basis where the risk is all with the lawyer. Legal fees on M&As, corporate structure and big litigation are miniscule compared to the size of the sums at stake. In house Counsel are not going to risk their jobs by sacrificing quality for fee certainty.
2-3 years ago, it became possible in the UK for law firms to become limited companies rather than partnerships. One or two small firms have done so, but rather to my surprise nobody significant has. I think this is a shame beacuse the partnership model is terrible, lawyers being generally pretty poor managers and businessmen.
Gups is right. I think however that litigation (and by litigation I also mean contentious regulatory work, not just court litigation) is the only area where it will stay since (i) clients are prepared to pay that, and (ii) you can't easily predict the amount of work needed. The only work last year I have been able to charge with my full hourly rate without caps of any kind, for example, was leniency work I did for a client in Poland. When it comes to preparing merger filings, drafting contracts etc., however, it's unlikely you will get a client willing to pay on an hourly basis without any cap.
In fact, the high end stuff is increasingly subdivided. On a M&A deal, the strategic stuff may still be chargeable at £500/hour by an experienced partners and senior associates but a lot of the grunt work - the due diligence etc - is now being outsourced. Ditto where the litigation requires trawling through vast wauntities of paperwork. Clients are just too sophesticated to pay £250 an hour for a junior lawyer in NY or London to do this work when it can be subcontracted to South Africa or India where they will do a better job for a fraction of the price.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 24, 2010, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be fine.
Hang out your own shingle, and get into collections and foreclosures. They're making big bucks these days.
Quote from: Gups on January 25, 2010, 06:09:23 AM
In fact, the high end stuff is increasingly subdivided. On a M&A deal, the strategic stuff may still be chargeable at £500/hour by an experienced partners and senior associates but a lot of the grunt work - the due diligence etc - is now being outsourced. Ditto where the litigation requires trawling through vast wauntities of paperwork. Clients are just too sophesticated to pay £250 an hour for a junior lawyer in NY or London to do this work when it can be subcontracted to South Africa or India where they will do a better job for a fraction of the price.
True to an extent. All my brother-in-law's classmates that went to work with DLA Piper have been getting the hatchet. The corporate clientele has been shrinking.
Quote from: Gups on January 25, 2010, 06:09:23 AM
In fact, the high end stuff is increasingly subdivided. On a M&A deal, the strategic stuff may still be chargeable at £500/hour by an experienced partners and senior associates but a lot of the grunt work - the due diligence etc - is now being outsourced. Ditto where the litigation requires trawling through vast wauntities of paperwork. Clients are just too sophesticated to pay £250 an hour for a junior lawyer in NY or London to do this work when it can be subcontracted to South Africa or India where they will do a better job for a fraction of the price.
That's true but this not only fucks up the business model, but also the training-on-the-job. If the only work performed locally is high-end expert work, then where will the juniors learn to do it, if they are not needed to perform the low-end work?
Plus it is yet another proof that the myth of globalisation and outsourcing ("we outsource menial/no-education-needed jobs so that we can focus on white collar jobs") is full of crap. I wonder for how long is the model sustainable before the West collapses due to massive drop in demand, resulting from lack of money.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 25, 2010, 06:17:54 AM
Hang out your own shingle, and get into collections and foreclosures. They're making big bucks these days.
I met a dude at the boozer, a shyster, who was doing collections. First time I was made aware of the possibility of shysters being involved in the process. I thought creditors just sold off the debt for pennies on the dollar to collection agencies who hired middle aged black women to call you 40 times a day. What exactly do lawyer/collectors do?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2010, 07:03:46 AM
What exactly do lawyer/collectors do?
They represent the plaintiff when you, as the defendant, are sued in civil court when the middle aged black women stop calling you 40 times a day.
It's the lawyer that files petitions for judgements, liens, foreclosures and wage garnishments. It's low overhead, high profit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 25, 2010, 06:17:54 AM
Hang out your own shingle, and get into collections and foreclosures. They're making big bucks these days.
Got a friend who is a bankruptcy attorney in Ocala or Gainesville (I always forget which... he lives in one and commutes to the other), Florida. He works basically around the clock these days.
Quote from: Gups on January 25, 2010, 04:55:08 AM
The billable hour is already dead for low end legal work (entry level litigation, conveyancing, wills etc) where anyone who wants to compete has to commodotise and make their profits by cutting costs through IT and concentrating on bulk.
At the high end, the billable hour won't die because clients are prepared to pay for quality and specialists won't do work on a fixed fee basis where the risk is all with the lawyer. Legal fees on M&As, corporate structure and big litigation are miniscule compared to the size of the sums at stake. In house Counsel are not going to risk their jobs by sacrificing quality for fee certainty.
2-3 years ago, it became possible in the UK for law firms to become limited companies rather than partnerships. One or two small firms have done so, but rather to my surprise nobody significant has. I think this is a shame beacuse the partnership model is terrible, lawyers being generally pretty poor managers and businessmen.
Most of the folks I know at big firms basically work as consultants to in-house counsel. They are still earning on the billable model. I agree that the entry-level stuff seems to be falling off, which will I think cause problems in the future - where will in-house counsel come from? How will high-end consultants get training? Basically, what Martinus said. The model relies on an intake of lawyers into the firms, many of whom go in-house.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 26, 2010, 02:28:39 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 24, 2010, 11:07:38 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 24, 2010, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be fine.
You'll make a fine barrista. :cool:
Oh, I get it. It's a pun.
It's merely repeating the joke from the Economist article.
Gee, if you couldn't get that, maybe you won't make a very good barrista... :(
This seems like as good a place as any to quote from an student response I'm reading. No comment:
QuoteMoving away from the first prong, I believe that part 3 of the Lemon Test is also wrong. It mandates that the government action in question must not result in excessive government entanglement with religion. [3] I believe this prong focuses too much on the level of government action and ignores the key problem of government actively supporting a religious viewpoint. For example, under the third prong, a bankruptcy court involved in a billion dollar restructuring of a church is excessively entangled in the church's affairs
I thought the Lemon Test had something to di with litmus paper? :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on January 26, 2010, 04:29:34 PM
I thought the Lemon Test had something to di with litmus paper? :huh:
That would be a "No."
Quote from: Lemon v. KurtzmanFirst, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion . . . ; finally, the statute must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion.'
(internal citations omitted.)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/403/602/case.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_Test#Lemon_test