|
prussian advisor posted:No, I've experienced both of those things, and they're both plainly bad. What I don't see is how adding MBA-holding grads who would be full time firm "management" would lower the incidence of either in law firms, or add anything to the organizations, individually or to the sector of the legal industry taken as a whole. What are the unique skills or abilities that the attorneys themselves are not capable of producing? I graduated from a program at Denver Law that can be taken either alone or as a dual-degree with a JD, the Master of Science in Legal Administration. It's basically an MBA that is geared directly toward applying business practices to a law firm environment, though I took the courts route. Subjects covered include things like Leadership and Management, Strategic Marketing and Business Development, Accounting, Human Resources (in practice), Financial Management, Client Service and Satisfaction, Employee Evaluation...lots of poo poo you would never see a lawyer doing. It basically gives the firm a permanent person to foist that poo poo off on, with a title of Office Manager if they don't have a JD or a Managing Partner if they do. edit: Going to apply for the CNMI clerk job. Mental note: get a cat to manage spider situation. Congrats to all the bar passers! Sorry you have to be lawyers. IrritationX fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Nov 4, 2011 |
# ? Nov 4, 2011 07:06 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 06:43 |
|
IrritationX posted:edit: Going to apply for the CNMI clerk job. Mental note: get a cat to manage spider situation. (It also only pays $16k per year!)
|
# ? Nov 4, 2011 07:33 |
|
nm posted:Bighead did you all no favors. That is not a lawyer job, that is a legal clerk job (which is different than a law clerk). Read the description. Not a lawyer; I'm a legal administrator. So this is right up my alley, even with the low pay.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2011 07:53 |
|
^^If you do still want it and manage to land it and need help re: place to live and all that, pm me. and god help you.nm posted:Bighead did you all no favors. That is not a lawyer job, that is a legal clerk job (which is different than a law clerk). Read the description. And the cost of living in Saipan will eat that up right loving quick, unless you're living on the living room floor of some teacher's crappy apt., using a scooter, and eating ramen. Not that some of you aren't doing that right now, but at least you live in a place where the words 'infrastructure' or 'maintenance' don't make people shudder.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2011 07:54 |
|
Abugadu posted:^^If you do still want it and manage to land it and need help re: place to live and all that, pm me. and god help you. I'll keep in mind the offer for assistance. Thanks. And thanks for shattering the obviously false assumption I had that it would be dirt cheap to live there. Oh well, if I get it, it should make for some interesting stories and a good answer to the "hardship" question that inevitably pops up during interviews.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2011 07:59 |
|
IrritationX posted:It basically gives the firm a permanent person to foist that poo poo off on, with a title of Office Manager if they don't have a JD or a Managing Partner if they do. The problem with this idea - getting a management degree so that you can become the managing partner - is that managing partners don't get to be managing partners by being good at management. They get to be managing partners by generating an enormous amount of legal work for the firm. When a partner controls the influx of money to a firm, and could take that money to a different firm, he or she gets to be in charge, because everyone else is scared that the managing partner will turn off the money faucet. Skills at management are simply not part of the equation.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2011 11:17 |
|
Solomon Grundy posted:When a partner controls the influx of money to a firm, and could take that money to a different firm, he or she gets to be in charge, because everyone else is scared that the managing partner will turn off the money faucet. Skills at management are simply not part of the equation. Obviously the big rain makers will hold powerful sway over over-arching policy decisions and things, but it still makes sense to have a permanent CEO/Managing Partner who runs the firm as a modern, efficient business.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2011 14:00 |
|
entris posted:Obviously the big rain makers will hold powerful sway over over-arching policy decisions and things, but it still makes sense to have a permanent CEO/Managing Partner who runs the firm as a modern, efficient business. That model doesn't work in a law firm. The lawyers aren't interchangeable after a certain level of seniority. If I'm an equity partner with a solid book and someone tries to put a CEO "manager" over me, and I don't like what this manager is doing, I don't have to sit there and take it. I'll just up and leave and take my book elsewhere, as Grundy said. And, if, as you said, the big rainmakers still have sway over the big decisions, then the CEO is just a figurehead and won't really accomplish anything that wouldn't have been accomplished anyway.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2011 14:38 |
|
10-8 posted:In a normal company, when a CEO comes in and tries to run things as a modern, efficient business, the employees either get in line or they get fired or quit. The CEO has authority because his subordinates are more or less interchangeable and replaceable. All good points. So i think that just leads to the conclusion that a truly modern law firm is going to need buy-in from the rain makers. So you'd need a CEO who could come up with a solid business model and who could convincingly pitch it to the rainmakers.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2011 15:44 |
|
entris posted:Obviously the big rain makers will hold powerful sway over over-arching policy decisions and things, but it still makes sense to have a permanent CEO/Managing Partner who runs the firm as a modern, efficient business.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2011 15:55 |
|
gvibes posted:It may make sense, but that's not how firms are run. Well, duh. We are talking in hypotheticals, here.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2011 16:00 |
|
entris posted:All good points. So i think that just leads to the conclusion that a truly modern law firm is going to need buy-in from the rain makers. So you'd need a CEO who could come up with a solid business model and who could convincingly pitch it to the rainmakers. Which in the end amounts to just paying a management consultant for advice
|
# ? Nov 4, 2011 16:13 |
|
dos4gw posted:Which in the end amounts to just paying a management consultant for advice Which the rainmakers won't do. "Why do I need a consultant? I generated $x last year!"
|
# ? Nov 4, 2011 16:59 |
|
Solomon Grundy posted:The problem with this idea - getting a management degree so that you can become the managing partner - is that managing partners don't get to be managing partners by being good at management. They get to be managing partners by generating an enormous amount of legal work for the firm. When a partner controls the influx of money to a firm, and could take that money to a different firm, he or she gets to be in charge, because everyone else is scared that the managing partner will turn off the money faucet. Skills at management are simply not part of the equation. But management skills actually are part of the equation, as in making sure you've got the right people doing the right jobs for the kind of business you're doing. Beyond that, things like Strategic Marketing and Business Development and Client Service and Satisfaction equip the firm--or, rather, the individual doing it--with the skills needed to generate as much business as possible, and keep it for future jobs.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2011 17:27 |
|
IrritationX posted:But management skills actually are part of the equation, as in making sure you've got the right people doing the right jobs for the kind of business you're doing. Beyond that, things like Strategic Marketing and Business Development and Client Service and Satisfaction equip the firm--or, rather, the individual doing it--with the skills needed to generate as much business as possible, and keep it for future jobs. Edit: Also, in the law firm context, the person who brings in the most money may by definition be the best person for the job since nobody else at the firm is doing any better.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2011 17:47 |
|
10-8 posted:That's all well and good in a MBA 101 sense, but in law firm world the guy who brings in the most money gets to make the decisions even if he's not the best person for the job. e: Also been reading up on CNMI, and I'm going to take a pass on that. IrritationX fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Nov 4, 2011 |
# ? Nov 4, 2011 19:04 |
|
10-8 posted:That's all well and good in a MBA 101 sense, but in law firm world the guy who brings in the most money gets to make the decisions even if he's not the best person for the job. Additionally, the guy who brings in the most money gets to make the decisions even if he's not particularly nice, humane, sane, or oriented in time and space. In my firm, two of the partners generate 70% of the work in the firm, and the other four of us generate the other 30%. Yes, we are all partners and we could outvote the two BSDs, but at what cost? "You guys outvoted me? gently caress you. Imma take my work down the street." Then what?
|
# ? Nov 4, 2011 20:18 |
|
I'm not convinced that having an MBA does much to make someone a better manager. Also, what equity partner in his right mind would ever want a "truly modern" firm? That's like saying that China would be better with a multi-party democracy; possibly true in theory but devastating to the ruling class.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2011 20:23 |
|
Solomon Grundy posted:Additionally, the guy who brings in the most money gets to make the decisions even if he's not particularly nice, humane, sane, or oriented in time and space. How do you guys drum up clients?
|
# ? Nov 4, 2011 21:02 |
|
Saga posted:dos4gw posted:Thanks guys, that was really helpful
|
# ? Nov 4, 2011 21:42 |
|
CaptainScraps posted:How do you guys drum up clients? Poorly, in my case. Most of my business comes on referral from other lawyers. I get it by joining lawyer clubs, teaching seminars for lawyers, and writing smarty-pants articles for attorney magazines. This year, I am on pace to generate around 800 hours of work for myself, which is the most I ever have generated. The other 1200-1400 hours comes from work generated by my partners. The guys who drum up 70% of the work for the firm have done so in two different way. Both built their practices in the 1980's and early nineties so the model is unlikely to work in today's market. Both bought houses in big fancy neighborhoods and are very active in those neighborhoods, becoming friends with rich people. One of the lawyers parlayed a relationship with one of the area's largest real estate developers into representing lot developers, contractors and banks. The other one joined a lot of community organizations, country clubs and other places where he could meet rich people, and he schmoozed like hell.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2011 21:59 |
|
Uh I'm doing terribly on the Barbri MPRE practice tests so I guess I'm gon fail
|
# ? Nov 5, 2011 00:29 |
|
Feces Starship posted:Uh I'm doing terribly on the Barbri MPRE practice tests so I guess I'm gon fail Those are harder than the real test. Barbri wants to sell you poo poo Thanks Solomon. I've got some capital together (about $10K) so I'm kicking around hanging my own shingle. I've got a friend who says she can bring in corporate clients (and has been approached by them to do work) but really doesn't trust herself to do it solo. Meanwhile I'd be doing every civil, family, and criminal case I could get my hands on with reasonable merit. G-Mawwwwwww fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Nov 5, 2011 |
# ? Nov 5, 2011 01:31 |
|
CaptainScraps posted:Those are harder than the real test. Barbri wants to sell you poo poo The hard thing for rookies hanging a shingle is that you don't have anyone with experience to approach for help. It was around year 7 before I felt that I could handle most matters without asking dumb questions of the folks down the hall who had been doing it for 20 years. Good luck.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2011 01:40 |
|
CaptainScraps posted:Those are harder than the real test. Barbri wants to sell you poo poo I've got two friends who hung a shingle this year. One is doing great and one is scraping by (but doing better). The main difference? Capital (mostly because of advertising). How many months can you run your business on $10k? Have you done a business plan?
|
# ? Nov 5, 2011 01:45 |
|
Solomon Grundy posted:The hard thing for rookies hanging a shingle is that you don't have anyone with experience to approach for help. It was around year 7 before I felt that I could handle most matters without asking dumb questions of the folks down the hall who had been doing it for 20 years. Good luck. That's the thing. I was thrown headfirst into a pile of poo poo with my last job and you got to hear the complaints. So I've got an idea of how to do professional negligence work and some other litigation but I have no loving idea about criminal or corporate. I do, however, have people I can turn to for advice. GamingHyena posted:I've got two friends who hung a shingle this year. One is doing great and one is scraping by (but doing better). The main difference? Capital (mostly because of advertising). How many months can you run your business on $10k? Have you done a business plan? Well, I know what I'm doing next week. I've been pricing the bare minimum of things we need (I'm not planning on running out and renting an office and both of us have living expenses taken care of, for the time being) but haven't constructed a formal business plan. I'll get on it.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2011 01:56 |
|
Solomon Grundy posted:The hard thing for rookies hanging a shingle is that you don't have anyone with experience to approach for help. It was around year 7 before I felt that I could handle most matters without asking dumb questions of the folks down the hall who had been doing it for 20 years. Good luck. Experience is awesome but I've found that with a) a good selection of books b) example pleadings and motions and c) the rules of procedure/evidence & d) westlaw you can pretty much get what you need (in motions practice, haven't gone to trial yet). The question is really the amount of time required to do any activity on par with more experienced attorneys. Much faster to just ask someone who's done it before. Planning on going solo in Feb. I hope to refer the more complex cases to someone else for a % and the training.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2011 01:59 |
|
Major props to you guys going solo. Sounds terrifying.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2011 02:21 |
|
Feces Starship posted:Uh I'm doing terribly on the Barbri MPRE practice tests so I guess I'm gon fail CaptainScraps posted:Those are harder than the real test. Barbri wants to sell you poo poo I'm SO glad to hear that, CaptainScraps. I'm taking the MPRE tomorrow, and I'm: taking a legal ethics class this semester, watched the Barbri video, read 99% of the big orange barbri outline (skipped the very last part of the poo poo about judicial ethics) and I've taken 2 of the 4 practice exams. The first I got a 38/60, and the one this evening was a 41/60. You've calmed my nerves. I came here to post what Feces Starship posted. Maybe I won't fail after all. Everyone in law school and in this thread talks about how ridiculously easy the MPRE is, but these practice exams are crushing when you're going over them and marking a third of your answers wrong. I don't wanna be the guy who has to tell people that I failed the exam and have to retake it.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2011 03:20 |
|
Lilosh posted:I'm SO glad to hear that, CaptainScraps. I watched the video 2x, did a practice test, spent ~40 minutes taking the actual test and passed with plenty of room. You'll do fine.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2011 03:36 |
Lilosh posted:I'm SO glad to hear that, CaptainScraps. Do you murder children in your spare time? That's pretty much the only way to fail the MPRE if you put an iota or two into studying. I listened to the tapes on my 45 min drive to the test and aced it. Relax. You'll do fine.
|
|
# ? Nov 5, 2011 04:56 |
|
BigHead posted:Do you murder children in your spare time? That's pretty much the only way to fail the MPRE if you put an iota or two into studying. I listened to the tapes on my 45 min drive to the test and aced it. Relax. You'll do fine. Does it have to be in my spare time to sink my chances? Because sometimes... hey, wait a minute, are you MY lawyer?
|
# ? Nov 5, 2011 05:34 |
|
IrritationX posted:This is exactly why I went the courts route. I love the law and legal environment, but prefer the business side to practicing law, and seriously, gently caress firms. Probably a good decision. I hate to poo poo on the place so much, but it really is that bad, in just about every way except that it has a nice beach.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2011 05:40 |
|
Roger_Mudd posted:Experience is awesome but I've found that with a) a good selection of books b) example pleadings and motions and c) the rules of procedure/evidence & d) westlaw you can pretty much get what you need (in motions practice, haven't gone to trial yet). I don't mean it to come off like this will probably sound, but if you have not been through a trial yet, you don't really have a handle on how to work up a case (at least a civil case). Much of what you do in discovery and motion practice is driven by how you want the case positioned at trial. You have to envision what you want the case to look like at trial, project out the evidentiary issues from the outset so that you can solve them in discovery, and set trial traps for opposing witnesses in depositions. You have to picture the trial, and work backwards to set it up. If you have never had a trial, picturing how the trial will work out is difficult. Here is a practical tip for new lawyers filing a civil lawsuit. If your jurisdiction has model jury instructions, start there. Before you draft the complaint, look at the model jury instructions and try to put together a set of jury instructions for your case. Then, when drafting the complaint, be sure to allege facts which support each element of each claim as described in the jury instructions. Then make a list of those facts, and determine how you will try to prove those facts at trial. Which witnesses can testify to which facts? If proof of a fact is document-dependent, who has the document and how can you get it? Once you have the document, how do you authenticate it? If you need an expert, what foundational facts does he or she need to support the opinion, and how do you get those facts into evidence? If you make a roadmap for yourself, it makes everything else a little easier. You can pull it out before depos, to make sure you ask the right questions. You have a head start when a summary judgment motion comes in. How do you defeat the objection to the document that your client stole out of the front seat of his opponent's car (true story)? It is best not to get caught flat-footed at trial. Most importantly, if you know the target you are shooting at at trial, it reduces a lot of wasted time going down blind alleys, and helps you focus on the important stuff. I was lucky enough to start my career working for a lawyer who had been in practice for 40+ years, who gave me that tip. He also trusted me enough to simply hand me low value cases, and told me to go try them. I still had to frequently call back to the office (in the days before cell phones) for answers in the middle of trials. I don't know how you guys are going to do it without a resource like that, but you have my admiration for having the guts to try it. Solomon Grundy fucked around with this message at 12:27 on Nov 5, 2011 |
# ? Nov 5, 2011 12:24 |
|
Solomon Grundy posted:I don't mean it to come off like this will probably sound, but if you have not been through a trial yet, you don't really have a handle on how to work up a case (at least a civil case). Much of what you do in discovery and motion practice is driven by how you want the case positioned at trial. You have to envision what you want the case to look like at trial, project out the evidentiary issues from the outset so that you can solve them in discovery, and set trial traps for opposing witnesses in depositions. You have to picture the trial, and work backwards to set it up. If you have never had a trial, picturing how the trial will work out is difficult. get rid of law school and just have this motherfucker talk about things
|
# ? Nov 5, 2011 13:15 |
|
Solomon Grundy posted:Wisdom Wow. That's really insightful. I hope the plaintiff attorneys I deal with never read this.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2011 15:40 |
|
Solomon Grundy posted:I don't mean it to come off like this will probably sound, but if you have not been through a trial yet, you don't really have a handle on how to work up a case (at least a civil case). I don't mean this to come off like it will but every single litigator I've ever worked for has given me this advice. Edit: also said as "if you want to settle, prepare for trial"
|
# ? Nov 5, 2011 15:51 |
|
Solomon Grundy posted:I was lucky enough to start my career working for a lawyer who had been in practice for 40+ years, who gave me that tip. He also trusted me enough to simply hand me low value cases, and told me to go try them. I still had to frequently call back to the office (in the days before cell phones) for answers in the middle of trials. I don't know how you guys are going to do it without a resource like that, but you have my admiration for having the guts to try it. In March, my boss disappeared the week before trial on our big case because he was having an affair. Guess who got to assemble the model jury instructions, figure out the trial exhibits, prep witnesses and cover for him while he was having his affair? All for $15/hour. Woooooo. G-Mawwwwwww fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Nov 5, 2011 |
# ? Nov 5, 2011 16:31 |
|
mpre was real hard. is it just that the curve is really forgiving?
|
# ? Nov 5, 2011 17:45 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 06:43 |
|
Feces Starship posted:mpre was real hard. is it just that the curve is really forgiving? Its more like, you can get like 70% wrong and still pass In Michigan you only need an 85. It's like you only need a D- and there's no point in getting anything better than a D-
|
# ? Nov 5, 2011 17:50 |