At my exit interview a week ago, I told the partners at my firm that they were positioned to capture some really talented legal minds if they marketed the firm as what it really is: a "lifestyle firm." Apparently, my little suggestion caused quite a stir amongst them.
Some realize that the firm is extremely laid back. They've worked elsewhere and know the deal. They see the flexibility of the firm as a positive thing.
Others dismiss the fact that associates typically bill 110-140 hours a month (150 month = 1,800 hours a year) and fear that telling law students that they won't have to work many hours will breed laziness amongst everyone. They still think in old-school ways.
This year a significant number of 2Ls decided NOT to do OCI. I think the rumblings of people wanting to have a life is starting to show. Sure, there will always be a fair number of people willing to work killer hours for killer dough. However, firms are going to have to adapt to this new trend of work-life balance.
Most big firms are glorified Ponzi schemes: the partners at the top make a ton of money off of all the associates below them. For example, a first-year associate at a big firm in Denver rakes in around $110,000. That's an incredible amount of money. However, the firm charges around $300/hour to their clients for said associate's time. Throw in the fact that these people work around 1,900 hours and do the math: 300 x 1,900. Obviously, there'll be some variations depending on whether the partners actually bill the client for all the associates time, and the relatively expensive overhead these firms pay for all the support staff and nights out on the town.
One thing I learned over the summer is that there is no absolute rule on quality of life at a firm. Its all a question that's dependent on the individual. Big firms can be great for a certain type of person. Moreover, a big firm can be great for a certain type of person at a certain period in their life. Its not always just about the money. On the flip side, I definitely know several classmates who worked for small firms and hated it. Such a situation can be tricky. At a big firm, you can avoid that one asshole partner or co-worker relatively easy. When the office is 10 people, though, you are screwed.
Something to consider....
12 comments:
I agree with you about why our class isn't participating in droves in OCI (or that's what I gathered from your post) but it could be that our class is just kind of slacker-like. I don't think many of us tried to write-on to LR or the journals, either. For the record, I did both, but a lot of my friends didn't.
110? I thought I was doing well at a firm with a minimum of 150! Holy heck! That's really great.
Here's a fun fact: My dad's firm doesn't have a billable hours minimum. Wild stuff, huh?
Blaw, You may be right. Your class has been difficult to motivate. Bolder, Twice in two days! Welcome back!
I was thinking maybe Bolder's firm didn't get as many applications this year?? Bolder?
Wow, every firm and and each individual's experience at each of these different firms is different??!? The combination of intrinsic and extrinsic factors of each individual and of each individual experience creates a wide variety of opinions and enjoyment levels within different work environments?!!??. I guess you could apply this to about any area of life (ice cream, pets, different races, jai alai, etc.). Groundbreaking stuff.
LOL
But I would agree that the class of '08 is unusual -- or at least the half-of-it that I was in. The utterly low-key non-competitive aspect was surprising, after all the dire voices warning against the nature of law school in general. Personally, I like it; it's what has made law school such a pleasure.
I wonder what it was about the admissions process that year that came up with such a group?
I also got the impression (from the admitted students day) that the class of '09 is very different in that aspect. We shall see.
Hey, blawblaw, I'm not so sure that a 'low' percentage tried to do the 'write-on'. I know that a large cluster of (alert-aware) folks tried the cite-on for the tech journal, and then later the room for the write-on orientation was SRO despite important competing lunch-hour offerings. There had to be more than half-the-class there. Considering they didn't have the orientation in the courtroom, it seemed to me that half-the-class was about all they expected to attempt the competition in the first place.
Now, if there was one thing that might have been a turn-off, it might-have-been the packet topic (LOL); that was an insane (hilarious) set of documents to have to create something coherent out of. I am aware of at least one person who was at the orientation, but decided after looking at the materials that it just wasn't worth the headache.
1. I heard that apps were lower from someone involved in the OCI process.
2. I looked over all of the apps my firm received and expected there'd be more.
3. Colorado_law makes an excellent point about this year's change in timing.
I wonder whether the changes in rankings had something to do with it. I suspect that those below the 33% mark didn't even bother.
150 seems tame to me ... I won't mention where I need to get. YOu know all about this moop ...
My dad clipped an article for me the other day showing the starting salaries at biglaw in Dallas. Boy, is he going to be disappointed.:)
Yeah, I won't even tell you what sort of jobs I'm afraid I'm going to have to consider now that the rejections are piling up for OCI. So far I have SIX rejections out of the six firms to which I sent resumes that have chosen interviewees--14 more firms to go!! But at least the initial rejection process isn't dragging out over weeks. It's about time to dust off "Plan B." (And no, it doesn't involve a name tag and trans-fats.)
Post a Comment