Retirement from the Law at 26: True Story.

A Canadian Lawyer, Chris Graham, won the law school jackpot. He scored a Big Law Job as a Corporate Lawyer.  For the first few months, his position was admirable:

Ever leave a meeting at 2 p.m. and read about it on the New York Timeswebsite before dinner? (To be fair, this is more likely to happen when a major investment bank has recently declared bankruptcy.) Ever worked pro bono for hedge funds? Savour that for a moment. Then savour the case of champagne that arrives in your office when the project is finished. “Thanks for all your effort.”

Need to get documents to a client on short notice? “No problem. We'll send the corporate helicopter.” Just for documents.

That's exactly what many lemmings dream of when they enroll in law school.  But they don't realize the collateral damage that it causes:

That spring I found and lost a beautiful woman, then spent the summer thinking about what she had showed me about time, which turned out to be my side of the bargain with the firm. I get serious work and a generous salary; it gets my time, whenever it wants, as much as it wants.  

Yes.  Big Firm Life, lack thereof, is a tumultuous one.  Mr. Graham explains it beautifully.  Once you scored the job, your life is no longer linear.  It begins to have as many up and downs as the U.S. economy.  Sometimes you're working late into the night, and showing back up at 7:00 a.m. to "finish a deal."  Other times, you're twiddling your thumbs--terrified that you're never going to find enough work  to meet your billable hour requirements.  The unpredictability is agonizing:

Think of a graph showing your hours worked each day for a year. The regression line is not especially high, but the standard deviation is outrageous. That's life as a corporate lawyer.

For some people (perhaps many, judging by the number of corporate lawyers in the world), this sort of arrangement is fine. Standard. Life would be boring if you always knew what was coming.

It took a year to realize this is not me. Reacting to changing circumstances is one thing; being told how to react, and when to react, is another. My graph was a cardiogram, all heart attacks and comas. 

So this Canadian did what so many lawyers wish they could do.  He quit and went back to college to get a different B.A.   He went to Oxford, actually.  He majored in History and Politics so that he could do what he tried and failed to do in his limited free time--read and write.  It's funny because so many law students choose this very same major and find that it doesn't lead to gainful employment.  Maybe it doesn't lead to gainful employment when you already have loans for college?  But Mr. Graham had an advantageous position.  He used his BigLaw salary to save up for the additional schooling.  I suspect that he didn't have loans from law school either.  So, he was free to pursue intellectual satisfaction.  I hope he reads this post and corrects me if I'm wrong.

So, he retired from BigLaw at 26.  Lucky Canuck.  Good luck and a big thank you to him for putting out a realistic portrayal of life in BigLaw.

"Young Associates Aren't Worthless," Says Duke Dean

Thanks for that. But rather than write an op-ed in the National Law Journal, why not reform the curriculum at Duke to make better associates?

I went into this issue at length earlier this week. Yes, it's true. As a young and bright person, law school grads bring little to the table as an associate. It's not their fault. Law school does a horrid job of "preparing" law students to become practicing lawyers. But Dean Levi of Duke Law thinks this untrue:

For 17 years as a U.S. district judge, I hired first-year lawyers as clerks, and they were wonderfully productive, insightful, careful, skillful and hardworking. I gained a huge amount of very valuable assistance in preparing opinions and researching complex legal issues. Although it was somewhat of a burden to train a new crop of clerks each year, it was also a joy and undoubtedly made me a better judge.

I am certain that the same is true of new lawyers at firms, at government offices and at nonprofits. Indeed, I often have heard distinguished lawyers in all kinds of practice say that one of the aspects of being a lawyer they value the most is their interaction with, and instruction of, new and young lawyers. They say this not because young lawyers are worthless, but because they have so much to offer when properly guided.

Well, the problem with Dean Levi's logic, is that these students were likely productive, insightful, careful and hardworking before they went to law school. Don't get me started on researching "complex" legal issues either. Since Google has taken the place of Lexis and Westlaw, anyone can excel at researching complex legal issues. Frankly, very few legal issues are that complex. I know this because I explain the law to all of my clients and they all have a great understanding of their legal rights with a simple explanation. Some clients have approached me with what strategies that they came up after a few late nights on Google. So, what's the difference between a college graduate and a law school graduate? Not much. That's why complaints are mounting. Law Firms, selfish corporations that they are, are not willing to train attorneys on procedure--which can be truly complex and is NOT taught in law school. Instead, they fire young associates, or hold off on hiring and place the blame on law schools:

The criticism comes from law firm managers, in-house counsel and former lawyers who now comment on the legal profession. They most likely represent a minority view, but they are vocal. They say that clients are no longer willing to pay for the work of young associates because their work is "worthless." We might expect clients to make any argument that could lead to a lower bill, particularly during an economic downturn. But it is wrong and surprising for experienced lawyers inside and outside of firms to acquiesce in, even reinforce, this line of argument.

Clearly, the market dictates that there is no demand for an associate who bills at $350/hour. Why would there be? An inexperienced associate will take 10 hours to do what a mid-level associate can do in 2 hours. So, the clients are asking for discounts in their legal fees, and the law firms are turning around and slashing the overpriced associates. I don't blame law firms. I blame law schools. Dean Levi defends law schools as follows:

As a law school dean for the past three years, I know that law school graduates are ready and able to practice in firms, government agencies and public interest positions. Whatever room there may be for continued improvement to the law school curriculum, there is little doubt that the young lawyers whom we graduate today are equally well and better prepared for practice than at any other time in our history. Our graduates have had the benefit of superb clinical and experiential educational opportunities. Many of them already will have appeared in court, written appellate briefs and participated in simulated deals and transactions. They have had the discipline of thinking about difficult legal issues and applying that theoretical knowledge in the search for solutions to real-world problems. Many will graduate with joint degrees in business, economics, public policy, international law and the sciences. All of them have had substantial legal writing experience. Most of them are "tech savvy" in ways that both amaze and enormously benefit their less proficient elders.

It's not enough, Dean Levi. Listen to the Legal Industry. They aren't going to change their opinions because you told them to. Make Duke Grads more employable. That's what you're paid to do.

Even as conditions seem to improve, let's not permit the junior members of the profession to bear a disproportionate share of the burdens caused by the downturn on the ground they are only getting what they deserve.

What they deserve is the opportunity to show what they can do.

Why don't you do your part to lessen the burden on our young graduates? Why don't you decrease the tuition so they are able to find employment in smaller firms and eat and pay back Sallie Mae, simultaneously. You, Mr. Levi, and every other Dean of law schools are robbing our students blind. You have a duty to your students. Skaaden Arps doesn't. Jones Day doesn't. Neither does Mayer Brown. You have publicly acknowledged the problem, unlike most Deans. I will give you credit for that. Now create a solution.

Where in the World are the Deferred Associates?

So, there are some people that go to law school and end up on top. You know who they are... in this economy, they are top 25% of students who graduated from the T14 schools.  And what is the prize for these students?  They are rewarded with a delayed start date and some money to tide them over.  It's a pretty sweet deal actually.  Some were given $60K and health insurance.  Some were given nothing. Most were prohibited from working for another law firm in the meantime, some were given guidelines that they have to stick to in order to keep their jobs--should they ever materialize.

The last I heard anything about these associates-to-be was in the summer before their original start date,  September 2009.  But what have these little buggers been doing with themselves?    I ran into this article which gave us a little insight into their lives.  I must say, I'm a bit jealous.


Here are the portions of the article that interested me:

• Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo, for instance, told graduates due to join the firm in January 2010 that they would not be starting until January 2012 at the earliest. Some worried associates contacted the legal blog Above The Law, with one writing: “We are all pretty freaked out.’’ The company declined to comment other than to confirm the new starting date.
• Faced with a surplus of new attorneys, many firms have created programs to give those who have had their start dates delayed experience in the nonprofit and public sectors. The new attorneys often don’t have a choice of whether their start dates will be deferred, but some firms stipulate that they will only get paid during the year if they participate in the programs.
• Eighty-six of the firm’s new hires opted to take part in Goodwin Procter’s “Make a Difference’’ program, which was set up to enable the young attorneys to spend a year working for charities, civil rights groups, and legal aid organizations. 
• Last year, Ropes & Gray, launched a similar program called the New Alternatives Program, offering its young attorneys the opportunity to take a $60,000 lump-sum check plus health benefits to delay their contracts by a year. Of the 82 lawyers taking part, around 20 are providing legal aid to the poor, 15 are working for advocacy groups, and 14 are engaged in government service.

So, it looks like they are doing good things.  They are getting wonderful experience although it will not be useful to them as BigLaw associates.  I'm such a skeptic.  I look at the "Make a Difference Program" and I see a large tax deduction for the firms that have associates enrolled in it.  I think the associates will get something from it as well, but not nearly as much as they think.   Their experience in helping tenants who are facing eviction (known as shitlaw when its performed by solos) is not going to do help their career--it's more like chicken soup for the soul.

Am I the only person wondering if they will ever get to work in BigLaw at all?