A Message to 2L's Everywhere
The 2007 On Campus Interview Process (OH-SHI*) is coming to a close. All of the innocent tree-huggers are going to work for Orrick, and the girl that was screaming at me in the first month of my 1L year about protection for canines is now working at Steefel, Levitt & Weiss. We have all, in effect, realized the power that the process has on us.
I do not desire to say that we are all making a mistake. Far from it; I think it is important to understand BigLaw so that we either accept it as a career or move on to something else. However, I will post a link that I think EVERYONE who goes to work in BigLaw should read. It is a well written article that I have read in full. This article has important advice.
This article is the most useful article I have read in law school, period.
I am still working for BigLaw. In fact, I will be accepting my offer on Friday. But what I think is extremely important is for people to realize that this race we are all embarking on is largely what Ed Tom warned us about on the first day of orientation. We make our careers, not Wachtell.
P.S. I have a friend that gave up an offer at Skadden to work for a small plaintiff employment firm in Oakland. You have my respect, and you know who you are. Keep to your values, and make this legal profession better for us all.
I do not desire to say that we are all making a mistake. Far from it; I think it is important to understand BigLaw so that we either accept it as a career or move on to something else. However, I will post a link that I think EVERYONE who goes to work in BigLaw should read. It is a well written article that I have read in full. This article has important advice.
This article is the most useful article I have read in law school, period.
I am still working for BigLaw. In fact, I will be accepting my offer on Friday. But what I think is extremely important is for people to realize that this race we are all embarking on is largely what Ed Tom warned us about on the first day of orientation. We make our careers, not Wachtell.
P.S. I have a friend that gave up an offer at Skadden to work for a small plaintiff employment firm in Oakland. You have my respect, and you know who you are. Keep to your values, and make this legal profession better for us all.
Labels: 0L/1L Advice, Law School, Legal Culture, OCIP/Employment
posted by McWho at 12:26 AM
21 Comments:
I second that recommendation 100%. Bill Fernholz gave that Shiltz article to our group during the ethics orientation 1L year, and I've been passing it on since then. I suggest everyone read it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
(Sorry for deleted post above; oops!)
A third hoorah for the article.
Though only a 1L, I read this closely while applying to law schools. It's never too early to start thinking...
That article is terrifying.
I don't think there's anything in there that most of us didn't already know.
Hey, it's just a first job. Either you'll hate it and do something else; or you'll stick it out and roll around naked in all your money every night.
Thanks for the kind words, Casey, and I respect you as well for sticking to your values and not being afraid to voice them amidst the liberal Berkeleyans. As you also know, I know personally the courage that takes.
As far as the small plaintiff's firm goes, I think it was an easy call. Back home, summer law clerks are making 10 bucks an hour, so I never expected to be making 160k my second year of law school anyways. I figured why do something I hate for a reward I never planned for?
It's too bad that after Dean Edley's tuition change, working outside of biglaw will no longer be an option for a large number of people. Yes we have LRAP, but first of all, the current total loan limit will no longer cover three years of tuition/living expenses and secondly, the LRAP program excludes many employment options. Working at a small law firm, a public interest law firm or taking an academic position will no longer be possible.
Actually, law professors make upwards of $100K and public interest law firms are being covered by LRAP on a pilot basis starting this year. So, while it isn't as lucrative as biglaw (and what is?), doing something other than working for Skadden is still an option. I'm not a fan of the tuition hikes either, but I don't think we can use them as a scapegoat for a lack of imagination in designing a career.
At the end of this year, I'll be 110k in debt, yet I don't feel bound to pursue big law. Everybody is so mesmerized with 160k salaries that they forget that success doesn't have to be instantaneous. While the path to law professorship or private public interest firms takes longer to reap the rewards, it is certainly still feasible. Furthermore, one of the primary justifications given by Dean Edley for the tuition hikes is the need for more LRAP funding, so the contention that the hikes will disproportionately impact potential LRAP recipients is completely speculative. No one can say whether the increased funding for LRAP will be sufficient to equate with the hikes, or conversely that they will be so grossly insufficient as to discourage public interest work. The proof, as they say, will be in the pudding.
well, before we start to crap on biglaw too much, it seems that some people don't hate it as much as previously thought.
http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/10/everything_you_know_about_bigl.php
"We have all, in effect, realized the power that the process has on us." Ummm...more like "we have all realized the easiest way to pay for our bar fees and take a nice bar trip."
Also, I do wonder, after reading your recommended article how many of us will have panic attacks our 3L year having just accepted an offer with corporate law sweatshops. Ah, such is the demon of $100K+ loans. Thankfully, I have an exit strategy and a good therapist.
Yo Armen -- regarding the girl who allegedly "screamed" at you -- I think I know who you are talking about and you really should get your facts straight before you publicly post who is working for whom.
Yo Armen -- regarding the girl who allegedly "screamed" at you -- I think I know who you are talking about and you really should get your facts straight before you publicly post who is working for whom.
And you want ME to get my facts straight?
Great article. But it's a different ballgame if you want to live in SF or Manhattan. You pretty much need something close to a big firm salary to buy a decent house near those areas.
To the people posting about LRAP - I think you are wrong that tuition hikes will be borne disproportionately by people going into public interest. As someone in this category, I have researched the issue fairly exhaustively. With the new federal legislation, combined with likely changes in LRAP, it looks like public interest people will be able to be virtually loan free. This doesn't mean you won't GRADUATE with loans, but it does mean that after 10-20 years the government will forgive them completely, AND the law school will probably take care of your yearly payments (assuming you make below 80K or roundabouts) until then. Problem areas include clerking and academia, but really, folks, those are problems we are dealing with now anyways. Finally, Edley insists financial aid is gonna increase and they now use SUMMER income as a way to gauge aid, rather than merely considering previous financial condition. In sum, things are looking up for public interest lawyering. I went through OCIP including 8 callbacks and am turning down all my private sector offers to work at a public interest NGO or government.
Regarding the canine screamer . . . what I meant was that (a) screaming was not at all the accurate word, and (b) it is at this point factually incorrect to say that she will be working at Steefel, unless we are talking about completely different people, in which case you shouldn't talk shit about people in such a cryptic but obvious way, because assumptions are made and people get hurt.
Listen genius, I didn't write the post. So if you're going to cast aspersions about accuracy at least "get your facts straight before you publicly post." I'm still laughing at the hypocrisy.
Armen, you are quite right. And I apologize. Now that I know the identity of the person who wrote the post, I will deal with him directly. I was under the impression that you were in charge of all this. Strange things happen in one's head when one is betrayed by a person who pretended to be a friend.
Casey -- your first paragraph is really quite unfair and a little ridiculous, frankly. There is nothing necessarily inconsistent about caring about the environment or animals, and working for a firm. One of the top animal rights attorneys is a partner at a big law firm -- it's the only way he can do the incredible things that he does. I also know a lot of people who are going to work for a firm for just the summer, or just for a couple years. A lot of public interest places prefer someone who has had some really good training. (Also, while Orrick may be "Big Law", Steefel certainly isn't.) Finally, didn't you come to law school wanting to be a DA or PD or something? Might want to name yourself if you are going to give an example of hypocrisy.
"We have all, in effect, realized the power that the process has on us."
That includes me.
There seems to have been some kind of misconception of the point of this blurb. What I desired to say was that many people that come into law school with a bent on public interest or government end up working for firms. That is for a variety of reasons and I didn't even attack the irony. In fact, I pointed out that it isn't really a bad thing in my third paragraph.
You somehow assume that the post was a direct attack on you when I don't include any names or even the description of a real person. My examples contain parts of different individuals, put together to make a point. They are not, and were not intended to be, literal.
Post a Comment
<< Home