How many lawyers do we have here?

[october]

Anyway, I'm hoping that we'll be adding a NEW lawyer to these parts when October Fire finds out he passed the bar in a couple of months!

 

[october]

Yeah, I think it would be very interesting to hear OF's perspective, now that he's finished taking the bar and can look back on his law school experience.

 

I thought law school was fairly easy, looking back. While my friends were working 40-50 hours a week, I had 15 hours of class and 5 hours of studying. Once you get the hang of it, a lot of the readings can be skipped or skimmed. The first year did hhave some difficult points, but years two and three were pretty laid back. My social life didn't suffer in the least from the transition from undergrad, and I had A LOT of free time. Unless someone wants to make law review, or be in the top 10-15% of the class, the amount of work law school throws at you can be easily managed.

[tth2]

Yeah, I think it would be very interesting to hear OF's perspective, now that he's finished taking the bar and can look back on his law school experience.

 

I thought law school was fairly easy, looking back. While my friends were working 40-50 hours a week, I had 15 hours of class and 5 hours of studying. Once you get the hang of it, a lot of the readings can be skipped or skimmed. The first year did hhave some difficult points, but years two and three were pretty laid back. My social life didn't suffer in the least from the transition from undergrad, and I had A LOT of free time. Unless someone wants to make law review, or be in the top 10-15% of the class, the amount of work law school throws at you can be easily managed.

Just to be clear, I LOVED law school. Having just spent 4 years in the Army, law school seemed like a 3-year vacation to me (even first year), and I had a great social life, even though I was all the things Andy mentions above. Even studying for the bar was cool (my last truly free summer), although I was lucky because the firm I was joining subsidized my living costs and picked up all bar prep costs.

 

It's the part AFTER law school that I always want to warn prospective lawyers about.

[october]

 

It's the part AFTER law school that I always want to warn prospective lawyers about.

 

 

 

 

Check your PM.

[fast94cobra-migration]

Can I ask you guys where you went to law school?

 

Have any of you been able to find firms that don't ask for your first born when you join up?

 

Hope you don't mind the questions, i also collect SA marvels

I started going to Mile High Comics in second grade and blew all of my allowances there till high school. I just kinda got back into the hobby when I was on ebay selling my car and avoiding work i searched for 'age of apocalypse,' one of my favorite stories of all time. I was also psyched to learn about CGC, i'm sending my first three books to them this week. (FF 48, FF 52, DD 38)

[esquirecomics]

I graduated in 1992 from Albany Law School of Union University in Albany, New York.

 

I started my own firm right out of law school so didn't have to worry about my first born.

 

Whatever you decide to do, make sure you enjoy it.

[FFB]

Can I ask you guys where you went to law school?

 

Have any of you been able to find firms that don't ask for your first born when you join up?

 

Hope you don't mind the questions, i also collect SA marvels

I started going to Mile High Comics in second grade and blew all of my allowances there till high school. I just kinda got back into the hobby when I was on ebay selling my car and avoiding work i searched for 'age of apocalypse,' one of my favorite stories of all time. I was also psyched to learn about CGC, i'm sending my first three books to them this week. (FF 48, FF 52, DD 38)

 

I went to Hastings.

 

There are many firms that don't require you to give up all semblance of a normal life. This is a big part of what the interviewing process is for from your perspective if having a social life is important to you. While they're trying to figure out whether you are someone they want to hire, you need to be looking your interviewers in the eye to see if they have the glazed look of someone who has spent too many sleepless nights at the office. If you are looking for a "lifestyle firm" (meaning, a firm that will allow you to have a life outside of the office) you should also ask everyone you interview with what they like to do in their spare time and how they have managed to balance work time with fun time. Ask where they went on their last vacation, when, and for how long. Then ask about the vacation before that.

 

I have found that the geographic locale in which you work will often affect your firm's outlook on attorneys' social lives as much as anything. If you are working for a major firm in New York City or Los Angeles, forget having a social life. In San Francisco, there are some big firms that will not work you to death -- but there are also some that will.

 

The amount of time you spend at the office is not necessarily determined by the size of the firm. When I was in law school and during my first couple of years of practice when I was at a small firm, I used to think that big firm lawyers worked longer and harder than the lawyers at mid-sized firms and small firms. Having worked at a small firm (5 lawyers), a mid-size firm (~250 lawyers), and a large firm (1200+ lawyers) over the last eight years, I can say that I have more free time working for the large firm than I did at the small firm or the mid-size firm. Perhaps surprisingly, it was at the small firm where I had to work the hardest -- six or seven days a week, usually 12 hours or more per day.

[tth2]

Can I ask you guys where you went to law school?

 

Have any of you been able to find firms that don't ask for your first born when you join up?

 

Hope you don't mind the questions, i also collect SA marvels

I started going to Mile High Comics in second grade and blew all of my allowances there till high school. I just kinda got back into the hobby when I was on ebay selling my car and avoiding work i searched for 'age of apocalypse,' one of my favorite stories of all time. I was also psyched to learn about CGC, i'm sending my first three books to them this week. (FF 48, FF 52, DD 38)

 

I went to Hastings.

 

There are many firms that don't require you to give up all semblance of a normal life. This is a big part of what the interviewing process is for from your perspective if having a social life is important to you. While they're trying to figure out whether you are someone they want to hire, you need to be looking your interviewers in the eye to see if they have the glazed look of someone who has spent too many sleepless nights at the office. If you are looking for a "lifestyle firm" (meaning, a firm that will allow you to have a life outside of the office) you should also ask everyone you interview with what they like to do in their spare time and how they have managed to balance work time with fun time. Ask where they went on their last vacation, when, and for how long. Then ask about the vacation before that.

 

I have found that the geographic locale in which you work will often affect your firm's outlook on attorney's social lives as much as anything. If you are working for a major firm in New York City or Los Angeles, forget having a social life. In San Francisco, there are some big firms that will not work you to death -- but there are also some that will.

 

The amount of time you spend at the office is not necessarily determined by the size of the firm. When I was in law school and during my first couple of years of practice when I was at a small firm, I used to think that big firm lawyers worked longer and harder than the lawyers at mid-sized firms and small firms. Having worked at a small firm (5 lawyers), a mid-size firm (~250 lawyers), and a large firm (1200+ lawyers) over the last eight years, I can say that I have more free time working for the large firm than I did at the small firm or the mid-size firm. Perhaps surprisingly, it was at the small firm where I had to work the hardest -- six or seven days a week, usually 12 hours or more per day.

I went to Willam & Mary.

 

I would echo FFB's words. While in law school, I interviewed with a notorious NYC sweatshop firm and they were really proud of the fact that they kept drawers of new shirts at the office so that associates who had worked through the night could have a nice new clean shirt the next day. They genuinely believed this was a selling point! Needless to say, I gave them a big pass.

 

Not every firm is a total sweat shop, but geography plays a large role in the culture of the firm. However, I would be very careful about asking the vacation type questions mentioned by FFB during interviews, particularly if you're interviewing for a first year associate position (acceptable interview topics changes a lot depending what level of seniority you are). You need to check out the reputation of the firm first. If it's a firm that seems to pride itself on being a decent place to work, you might be able to ask a question like that, although even then I'd want to do it as subtly as possible, and it would depend on the demeanor of the interviewer. I would NEVER ask that question with a NYC firm, no matter how friendly the interviewer or how lifestyle-friendly they portrayed themselves.

 

One bit of advice I would give is start with as prestigious a big firm as you can, which may require you to suck it up for a couple of years. The reason is that the options available to someone who starts at a big firm are generally better, because it's generally easier to move downstream than upstream. If after a couple of years in a big, brand-name firm, you decide the hours or the work are not for you, you will find it much easier to find a position with a smaller firm, or in-house, then if your only work experience has been with a small or mid-size firm that is only known locally or regionally. And, if you practice business/transactional law as I do, there will simply be no comparison between the quality/complexity of deals and trainng that you work on at a big firm compared to a small firm.

[october]

Can I ask you guys where you went to law school?

 

Have any of you been able to find firms that don't ask for your first born when you join up?

 

 

I went to the University of Illinois. I am currently looking for jobs (my first interview is wednesday) so I will let you know about jobs in a few months.

[Jeffreykli]

Like FFB, I went to UC Hastings...in fact, I was in the class ahead of FFB, so naturally, I'm a better, more experienced lawyer than he is.

 

The legal industry has many, many options other than private practice. It all just depends on what type of law you want to practice, in what environment, how risk adverse you are, and what your salary expectations are.

 

For example, if you want to litigate, you can work for a public agency (DA, PD, DOJ, etc), or a small/medium/large plaintiffs' firm, or a small/medium/large defense firm. Do not think that the only way to go is a big firm. Naturally, public agencies will generally pay less than private practice firms, and usually larger firms can afford to pay more than smaller firms.

 

As I look back, I think the most important aspect of the first job or two is the training. Whether you're at a big firm or not, try to surround yourself with mentors or other people willing to show you the ropes, not just about your practice area, but about some of the intangibles...how to manage the caseload, balance work/life, manage client expectations, etc. These are all skills that are essential to a (relatively) happy practice.

 

Good luck.

[Foolkiller]

I'll echo all of the sentiments above from Scott, Tim and Jeff:

 

I went to Seton Hall University School of Law. When I graduated, I spent four years as an ADA in Philadelphia and then transitioned to a Plaintiff's firm which has about a total of 50 lawyers spread out across the country (most of them are in Texas though).

 

Some large firms are a sweatshop, as Scott mentioned, particularly in NYC and LA, but you will find many firms that offer a good quality of life. The part I have never liked about most law firms is that you generally are accountable for billing hours and keeping the accounting of them straight. While the DA's office is generally pretty light in that area, it's not exactly intensive when it comes to paperwork. While most other ADAs I worked with went into criminal or civil defense, a few of us were fortunate enough to get in with Plaintiffs firms. Here I've found that it's ebbs and flows. Sometimes the workload is very intense and you are working almost all the time. Other times, you can roll in whenever you feel like it and leave whenever you feel like it. Right now, I'm heavy on my deposition schedule, so I have slightly longer days. For the most part though, I've been able to maintain my quality of life very nicely.

 

My friends at big firms in Philly don't really complain that much. Although many of them work long hours, they're not in that many weekends, and they get in around 9 and work til about 7 or 8 depending on their schedule. I would say for how much they are paid, that's not too bad. Plaintiff's lawyers rely more on what they bring in to generate their pay (although I am salaried as an associate, bonus is still the key to propel you into the big time) so it's very different.

 

Whatever you choose, choose an area of law you will be interested in.

[mrwoogieman]

I thought this thread died months ago.

 

Fordham

[Norrin_Radd]

What do the lawyers here think about the John Roberts nomination to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

 

 

Does anyone else have concerns about nominating an unknown quantity to Chief Justice?

 

[tth2]

Does anyone else have concerns about nominating an unknown quantity to Chief Justice?

I'm not sure what you mean by "unknown quantity". The guy is a federal appellate judge in the DC Circuit, the most prestigious circuit, and served in government positions in the Solicitor General's office. The fact is virtually any judge, lawyer or legal academic will be an unknown quantity to the vast majority of the public.

 

What, in your opinion, would constitute a "known quantity"? Serving already as an associate justice or being a well known politician or government official? I'm not sure I would agree that a CJ has to come exclusively from those types of positions.

[esquirecomics]

Judge Roberts is definitely not an unknown quantity. He is quite well known here in DC. I might not agree with all his political beliefs, but he is qualified to sit on the SC even as Chief Justice. The issue/debate about him is not qualifications, it is his political leaning and judicial beliefs.

 

Well, if people felt so strongly about this, they should not have voted for George Bush in 2004. We all knew whoever won in 2004 would have one, and most likely, two SC nominations to make.

 

I listened to a great deal of the hearings today and I have to give him credit for how he handled himself. Frankly, he answered a lot of questions more than most thought he would. He definitely skirted some issues and I would have preferred to have heard him say he no longer supported some of the positions he espoused in the early 1980s as a White House counsel and that they were the beliefs of a young, impressionable lawyer, rather than just claim they were memos written to support Administration policy. On the other hand, I thought Sen Kennedy's efforts to question him, and particularly never allowing Judge Roberts to fully answer a question, backfired.

 

No question, absent some unbelievably yet unknown revelation coming forward, that Judge Roberts will be confirmed.

 

The real battle will be over the next appointee.

[Foolkiller]

I agree. I also feel Judge Roberts will be confirmed. I think what a lot of the news media outlets have put out there for the public is that he hasn't sat for very long so they are worried about his credentials. What the Court needs more of is lawyers with practical experience in the trial system and the real problems that lawyers and the public deal with in viewing their decisions. I think increasingly, the Court has become mired in the ethereal world instead of the real one. With decreasing productivity and more work being shifted to law clerks, I am hopeful for an efficient well run Court. I believe Rehnquist did a good job from a managerial standpoint.

[esquirecomics]

I agree. I also feel Judge Roberts will be confirmed. I think what a lot of the news media outlets have put out there for the public is that he hasn't sat for very long so they are worried about his credentials. What the Court needs more of is lawyers with practical experience in the trial system and the real problems that lawyers and the public deal with in viewing their decisions. I think increasingly, the Court has become mired in the ethereal world instead of the real one. With decreasing productivity and more work being shifted to law clerks, I am hopeful for an efficient well run Court. I believe Rehnquist did a good job from a managerial standpoint.

 

A lot of powerful judges have very little practical experience as lawyers. One of the other possible SC nominees is Judge Wilkinson of the 4th Circuit. He ruled against me in a CIA case recently for which I am pursuing cert to the SC. He has no practical experience as a lawyer. Basically, as I recall, his entire career was either govt policy positions or academia.

 

In fact, if my recollection is correct one does not even need to be a lawyer to sit on the SC, as a constitutional matter. Of course, that won't happen in modern times.

[tth2]

What the Court needs more of is lawyers with practical experience in the trial system and the real problems that lawyers and the public deal with in viewing their decisions. I think increasingly, the Court has become mired in the ethereal world instead of the real one.

But it has never been this way, or at least not in the modern era. SC justices tend to be people who were academic superstars and then spent most of their careers in academia, as judges and/or government. I was discussing just this issue the other day, and as far as I could remember, probably the last justice who had been a prominent practicioner was Lewis Powell, maybe Harry Blackmun.

[Foolkiller]

Actually, I'm not sure I agree with that. Thurgood Marshall argued before the Court before he was a member of it and had experience as a litigator. I'm not saying they should be prominent practioners, but some experience is important. Don't you guys think that some of the reasons why there's confusion in rulings or in their application to the lower courts, in stems from the Court's increasing inability to relate to the problems that are present in the current judicial system. My recollection is that other Justices have had more practical experience either as trial judges or lawyers at some point in their careers, even if it is early.

[esquirecomics]

Don't you guys think that some of the reasons why there's confusion in rulings or in their application to the lower courts, in stems from the Court's increasing inability to relate to the problems that are present in the current judicial system.

 

I absolutely agree with this. I've heard this complaint before, and it is not just applicable to the SC.