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'm sure my original post came across as flippant, but if there's a concrete solution to a concrete problem to be found here, I'm genuinely interested to know what it is.

IrritationX posted:

edit: Going to apply for the CNMI clerk job. Mental note: get a cat to manage spider situation.

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.
(It also only pays $16k per year!)

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.
(It also only pays $16k per year!)

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

gvibes posted:

It may make sense, but that's not how firms are run.

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.

dos4gw posted:

Which in the end amounts to just paying a management consultant for advice

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Saga posted:

dos4gw posted:

CaptainScraps posted:

How do you guys drum up clients?

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

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.

CaptainScraps posted:

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Lilosh posted:

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.

Lilosh posted:

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.

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.

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.

e: Also been reading up on CNMI, and I'm going to take a pass on that.

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).

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.

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.

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 posted:

Wisdom

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).

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.

Feces Starship posted:

mpre was real hard. is it just that the curve is really forgiving?