|
Abugadu posted:It kind of fucks with your head a bit when you go to a T1, do decently, and not only can't find a law job when you graduate, but can't get any job because any potential employer is convinced you'll jump ship the second you get an offer in the legal field. Then you panic more because if you don't do legal poo poo right away, your resume looks worse and worse to prospective legal employers, who wonder why you were toxic in the first place. Or you can gamble and hang your own shingle, but with this economy, you're better off playing online poker. This. It's not easy to fallback on a paralegal job or any job outside of law. Maybe the girl who is working through school as a paralegal is in a good spot to fall back - no gap in her resume, years of paralegal experience, and repertoire with a firm, but your average kid who is going straight through from undergrad won't have that. I never even got an interview for a paralegal job in my year and a half off and I applied to a ton of them - despite going to a good school, doing well, and having been a paralegal at two firms prior to law school. Haven't heard from any of the non-lawyer jobs I've been applying to this time around either, even though I'm employed at one of the best firms in the city so it's not even like I'd want to jump ship. And I'm female so I think that gives me a little bit of an edge in jumping poo poo since I'm of that age where women want to leave law firm life and settle into something less time consuming. If you dont mind if your fallback is hanging out your own shingle and you graduate without debt, I'd say go for it. It seems most people aren't okay with that though and fallback non-legal jobs aren't as easy as they sound like they should be.
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2011 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
A friend of mine was one point short of passing the MPRE score requirement for CA, where he's going after graduation. California has the highest MPRE passing requirement, so he's going to have to take it again tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2011 06:05
|
|
|
HooKars posted:I never even got an interview for a paralegal job in my year and a half off and I applied to a ton of them - despite going to a good school, doing well, and having been a paralegal at two firms prior to law school. We hired someone as a paralegal who had a JD a few years back. Swore that he understood he would be working as a paralegal, would be dumped on by attorneys as a paralegal, that we didn't care he had a law degree and didn't ever want to hear about his law degree, that he would never be hired as an attorney by us even if he personally saved seventeen clients from a building fire, etc. About nine months in, we started hearing about how he could do more, because he had a JD, and really wanted to move up. We fired him, and it is viewed as a failed experiment that won't be repeated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2011 06:09
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:About nine months in, we started hearing about how he could do more, because he had a JD, and really wanted to move up. I mean, I get the "abandon ship" fear from someone who graduated and couldn't find a job right away or the fear that someone would want to move up. It makes sense and most people who graduate law school don't want to be paralegals. But the JD can cut off options, some law firms will overlook it, but if you're not sure you want to be a lawyer, it's not a very good route. I can't say I really get the same fear that seems to exist about someone who is currently an attorney at a major firm and knows what it's like, doesn't like being an attorney and wants to actively quit their current position, and has prior experience being a paralegal and wants to go back to their old job. It's why I'm hoping my job hunt will end up being differently this time around. I haven't given it enough time to say for sure but it's not going so smoothly so far.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2011 07:55
|
|
|
Well, the MPRE wasn't so bad. Good thing I found an eraser to use with my golf pencil though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2011 17:43
|
|
|
HooKars posted:I can't say I really get the same fear that seems to exist about someone who is currently an attorney at a major firm and knows what it's like, doesn't like being an attorney and wants to actively quit their current position, and has prior experience being a paralegal and wants to go back to their old job. It's why I'm hoping my job hunt will end up being differently this time around. I haven't given it enough time to say for sure but it's not going so smoothly so far. Your position might be better, but it seems to me you have a bit of a dilemma. If I were interviewing you, you would have to figure out how to carefully navigate the following two issues, the answer to one of which would imply bad things for the other, and vice versa. 1. I would be concerned that you were just using the paralegal position as a way to segue out of a nasty current position, to give yourself a less painful place from which to regroup and go after that attorney job you really want at a non-miserable place. 2. If you really sold me that you don't like the attorney life, never want to be an attorney again, and "just" want to be a paralegal, I would immediately be concerned that you're really kind of a slacker and don't like hard work, and want to hide as a paralegal. Hope you understand I'm not taking a shot at you. I get it (and frankly, I'm the first one to understand that one can still be willing to work hard but just not want to work the insane hours of a law firm attorney, or work hard doing hated job X). But I don't think most partners get that (or they have their suspicions no matter how you frame it), so I'm just putting on my "generic partner in a law firm" hat and telling you what you might run into.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:Hope you understand I'm not taking a shot at you. No it's cool, its good to know what the concerns would be. I never make it to the interview round though - any suggestions on something good to put in a cover letter about wanting to transition my career?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2011 21:11
|
|
|
wacko_- posted:I took the MPRE twice. There's no shame in it. I'd still be at the same job I am now. Also lol I got a job. Congrats! What are you doing and where are you doing it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2011 22:08
|
|
|
Fluffykins posted:Well, the MPRE wasn't so bad. Good thing I found an eraser to use with my golf pencil though. I finished in like 45 minutes. I'm either super ethical or super failing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
HooKars posted:No it's cool, its good to know what the concerns would be. I never make it to the interview round though - any suggestions on something good to put in a cover letter about wanting to transition my career? If so, Inyo county is hiring an entry level county counsel. County counsel positions are the poo poo if you're in civil. It has the same quality of life that DAs and PDs brag about (actually, likely better): good benefits, pensions, vacations, 40 hour work weeks, no hunting for billables. http://www.inyocounty.us/county_jobs/DeputyCC.pdf Yes, it is in the middle of goddamn nowhere, but that might mean you'll actually get the job. Plus, being a lawyer will clearly not be a disadvantage, and if some reason you decide to enter private practice, CC isn't the resume poison that a paralegal is (quite a few CCs become judges). Plus you won't get poo poo on by lawyers in the firm for being "just a paralegal."
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 01:13
|
|
|
nm, where are you Mondale goons drinking tonight?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 01:27
|
|
|
Macunaima posted:nm, where are you Mondale goons drinking tonight? I'm drinking at the Fillmore tonight. That said, back when I was there, my group went to townhall and bullwinkles. Corner bar for sports. Grandmas shut down after 2L year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 02:21
|
|
|
nm posted:I live in California now. Adams sent us out for a bunch of growlers from Town Hall during BA Corps one night.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 02:36
|
|
|
Macunaima posted:Adams sent us out for a bunch of growlers from Town Hall during BA Corps one night. I liked Adams, but he never got us beer.  (I had him for Commercial Paper and Secured Transactions, I had Matheson for corps. None of which I'll likely ever use). Townhall really has some of the best beer in the region.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 02:50
|
|
|
nm posted:Hey, if I recall correct, you're admitted in California.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 02:58
|
|
|
nm posted:I liked Adams, but he never got us beer. Adams is the dictionary entry for "shyster". I liked him too, despite his sadistically brutal Article 9 exam. I had Matheson for advanced BA Corps, also a nice guy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 03:03
|
|
|
HooKars posted:No it's cool, its good to know what the concerns would be. I never make it to the interview round though - any suggestions on something good to put in a cover letter about wanting to transition my career? Not particularly - everything I can think (such as suggesting that you do not like being responsible for client generation, huge hours, etc.) is negative and does not really read properly. The only thing I can think of immediately, and I have not exactly thought it through so it may be stupid, is to strongly note that having experience both positions, you are comfortable now in wanting to work as a paralegal. That at least is fairly neutral but also somewhat compelling to me - you have had the opportunity to work as both (as opposed to many recent law grads who have never worked as a paralegal or an attorney) and are making a knowing choice without compulsion (i.e. you have the opportunity to have a job as an attorney that you are voluntarily passing up). I think you have essentially already been using that line of reasoning, right? Of course that line of reasoning then begs the follow up question, "Why?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 04:23
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:We hired someone as a paralegal who had a JD a few years back. Swore that he understood he would be working as a paralegal, would be dumped on by attorneys as a paralegal, that we didn't care he had a law degree and didn't ever want to hear about his law degree, that he would never be hired as an attorney by us even if he personally saved seventeen clients from a building fire, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 05:36
|
|
|
That just seems hugely shortsighted. You know all about the person's work ethic, quality of work, and their ability to put in long hours. Working full-time and going to law school has to take a hell of a toll, so if the person has maintained high quality of work, has consistently showed up without a bunch of extra "sick days" and is someone worth keeping, why the hell give them the "no today, no tomorrow, no next week" treatment and not give them a shot at a position as a lawyer if one's available? At least let them interview, and if they meet the partners' criteria for hiring, at least give it some thought and maybe hire them. poo poo, if you did hire them, they could even do their own paralegal poo poo--even shovel some of the other lawyers' poo poo their way--and save some money. Someone who's willing to turn down a job at a different firm for an imaginary shot at a lawyer job where they are has some serious employer loyalty, and that's pretty hard to find. That's something you build and use, not stomp down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 05:54
|
|
|
Huh, this thread and the engineering one and a few of the others got moved, but the library science one and the foreign service one are still in A/T. If anything, shouldn't this thread stay in A/T since there are no jobs?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 07:18
|
|
|
IrritationX posted:That just seems hugely shortsighted. You know all about the person's work ethic, quality of work, and their ability to put in long hours. Working full-time and going to law school has to take a hell of a toll, so if the person has maintained high quality of work, has consistently showed up without a bunch of extra "sick days" and is someone worth keeping, why the hell give them the "no today, no tomorrow, no next week" treatment and not give them a shot at a position as a lawyer if one's available? At least let them interview, and if they meet the partners' criteria for hiring, at least give it some thought and maybe hire them. poo poo, if you did hire them, they could even do their own paralegal poo poo--even shovel some of the other lawyers' poo poo their way--and save some money. Someone who's willing to turn down a job at a different firm for an imaginary shot at a lawyer job where they are has some serious employer loyalty, and that's pretty hard to find. That's something you build and use, not stomp down. Unfortunately, none of the lawyers involved have any employer loyalty and most of them think the very concept is hilarious and proves the man insane, so there you are. It also doesn't help that most lawyers are (wo)manchildren and can't possibly work with a former subordinate as an equal or make eye contact.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 07:21
|
|
|
Adar posted:It also doesn't help that most lawyers are (wo)manchildren and can't possibly work with a former subordinate as an equal or make eye contact.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 08:14
|
|
|
nm posted:Hey, if I recall correct, you're admitted in California. Hey, that's kinda funny, my Dad used to work in Bishop back in the day. Beautiful area. But, it really is the goddamn middle of nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 09:53
|
|
|
i81icu812 posted:Huh, this thread and the engineering one and a few of the others got moved, but the library science one and the foreign service one are still in A/T. Wow, thank you so much for mentioning that there's a library science thread. Now I have a way to convince my sister not to get that master's without her hating me. Also good job making the same obvious joke that two other people have already made.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 14:02
|
|
|
IrritationX posted:That just seems hugely shortsighted. You know all about the person's work ethic, quality of work, and their ability to put in long hours. Working full-time and going to law school has to take a hell of a toll, so if the person has maintained high quality of work, has consistently showed up without a bunch of extra "sick days" and is someone worth keeping, why the hell give them the "no today, no tomorrow, no next week" treatment and not give them a shot at a position as a lawyer if one's available? At least let them interview, and if they meet the partners' criteria for hiring, at least give it some thought and maybe hire them. poo poo, if you did hire them, they could even do their own paralegal poo poo--even shovel some of the other lawyers' poo poo their way--and save some money. Someone who's willing to turn down a job at a different firm for an imaginary shot at a lawyer job where they are has some serious employer loyalty, and that's pretty hard to find. That's something you build and use, not stomp down. Edit: Also, if your employer consistently tells you over a period of years that they only hire people in the top X percent of the class, and you are, in fact, nowhere near the top X percent of your class, you have no one but yourself to blame when you don't get hired for the better position. 10-8 fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Mar 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 16:20
|
|
|
10-8 posted:Because a place that only hires people from decent law schools who are in the top 25% of their class isn't going to hire someone with middling-to-poor grades from a T4 school. In this market, when a job posting gets 500 resumes from top-flight lawyers, why should anyone hire a less-credentialed and less-competent person just because they're loyal? And I don't think "loyal" is even the right word here. The loyalty only exists to the extent that someone believes they can still get a better job. That's not loyalty, that's sycophancy. Why do you assume he's less competent because he's less credentialed? Credentials are a predictor of competence, not a determinant. Your firm is already fully familiar with this person's work and the firm knows him to be both competent (he would have been fired otherwise) and deeply loyal. That is exactly the sort of person the firm should want as an employee.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 20:38
|
|
|
Maybe because competency as a lawyer is different from competency as a paralegal?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:Congrats! What are you doing and where are you doing it? Patent examiner at the USPTO in Alexandria. Its not a law job, but at least the JD got me some extra money so I'm not completely destitute.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 21:05
|
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:Maybe because competency as a lawyer is different from competency as a paralegal? I feel like at least half of what I do could be done by a paralegal, personally. Hell, sometimes my work WAS done by a paralegal pre-5 pm and then would get handed to me if it was post-5 pm and the paralegal had gone home in my last firm. The difference between a paralegal and a junior associate is not a huge one, and things are probably done better by a senior paralegal than a junior associate. They should give him a chance, but firms suck. Slyfrog posted:Not particularly - everything I can think (such as suggesting that you do not like being responsible for client generation, huge hours, etc.) is negative and does not really read properly. I'm also trying for completely different non-law firm/non-law jobs if anyone has a good line for just switching careers entirely. Contract specialist and junior copywriter and editor positions are my current favs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 21:16
|
|
|
HooKars posted:I feel like at least half of what I do could be done by a paralegal, personally. Hell, sometimes my work WAS done by a paralegal pre-5 pm and then would get handed to me if it was post-5 pm and the paralegal had gone home in my last firm. The difference between a paralegal and a junior associate is not a huge one, and things are probably done better by a senior paralegal than a junior associate. I was actually trying to estimate what could be done by a paralegal in my job too, and I came up with about half of what I do. The problem is the other half is a lot different than what our paralegals are ever asked to do, so success as a paralegal at my workplace, anyway, doesn't really mean you'd be good at a lot of what attorneys in my office do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 21:18
|
|
|
HooKars posted:Contract specialist and junior copywriter and editor positions are my current favs. You can't have copywriter. That's my current dream/obsession job/way out that I know I'll never go do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 21:25
|
|
|
Draile posted:Why do you assume he's less competent because he's less credentialed? Credentials are a predictor of competence, not a determinant. Your firm is already fully familiar with this person's work and the firm knows him to be both competent (he would have been fired otherwise) and deeply loyal. That is exactly the sort of person the firm should want as an employee. The purpose of the prestige game, of hiring only prestigious lawyers, isn't to find the most competent people. It's to add to the prestige of the firm, which in turn gives the firm access to the prestigious clients, because the executives running the prestigious client companies want to tell their shareholders that they hired only the most the prestigious of firms engaging only the most prestigious of lawyers to handle the company's important matters. This makes it easier for said executives to cover their own asses in case of Things Going Wrong, a service that they will pay dearly for, so long as it is with other people's (shareholder's) money. Why do we take the finest minds in the legal profession and lock them in a room to read documents that could be competently (and possibly more carefully) read by some class-bottoming Cardozo grad? It has nothing to do with skill, and everything to do with the fact that these big clients aren't hiring technicians to perform a task, they're hiring anointed ones, the best of the best, to sanctify their actions. And that, at the end of the day, is the core product of the part of the legal profession that earns the big bucks and serves the status-quo beneficiaries - sanctification. Indulgences in the form of opinion letters. Re-distribution of blame from individuals who can be held accountable to nebulous systems which can't. The assurance that if something goes wrong, it's not the executive's fault, or anyone's for that matter, it's beyond human hands, because the best of the best of the best were engaged to avoid that catastrophe. You people who are upset at him for firing that low tier paralegal don't understand what product his firm is selling. He probably doesn't even fully understand what it is his firm truly sells to its clients. Form checks, contracts with boiler plate languages ripped out of the SEC filings of other publicly held companies, endless nights of due diligence and doc review in warehouses full of documents, these are not the ends, these are not the product, because in the end the product is not legal work. If it were, it would have been outsourced to a legion of hungry, desperate lawyers who would do it all for a tenth of the price. These artifacts and trials performed by the highest graduates of the most prestigious institutions are merely the trappings of an elite priesthood, they're the benedictions, the miters, the chain censers of a ritual whose solitary purpose is to cement the legitimacy of those who hold power, and to insulate them from blame and responsibility for what they do. Martin Random fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Mar 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
Junior copywriting is pretty sweet, yeah. Friday was my busiest day ever but I still got to go home by 5 (well 6, but 6 is my normal going home time so "home by 5" is what we say about that situation). I actually had to work through my lunch break, it was crazy. But yeah I really can't believe how crazy lucky I got with getting this job. I hope they decide not to get rid of it!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 22:33
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:You can't have copywriter. That's my current dream/obsession job/way out that I know I'll never go do. Try starting out as a temp. I hear if you're loyal and do a good job, they'll hire you as a copywriter even if your credentials aren't up to par. Edit: drat it, semi-beaten by Ainsley talking about his job MoFauxHawk fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Mar 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
Martin Random posted:words This is the reason big law is doomed. More and more companies are following Walmart's example and restricting who can work on what and what they can charge. Good riddance!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:This is the reason big law is doomed. More and more companies are following Walmart's example and restricting who can work on what and what they can charge. Good riddance! Did you even read what I wrote? That's the exact opposite of what I said. If these companies were buying legal services, then the Walmart, Walmart, and Payless LLP would predominate biglaw. But they're not buying legal services. They're buying legitimacy, which comes from prestige. Costs are being cut, heads are rolling, the times are risky. If anything, the big firms, Wachtell, Cravath, Sullivan, etc., can name their price now more than ever. Of course, it's all pageantry, the clients have to see cuts being made, so they have to make big shows of austerity, no big lunches, no high dollar recruitment drives, but despite this, profits per partner are sky high, and associate compensation is down down down. Martin Random fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Mar 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 22:51
|
|
|
MoFauxHawk posted:Try starting out as a temp. I hear if you're loyal and do a good job, they'll hire you as a copywriter even if your credentials aren't up to par. I'm not sure if you were referring to me or making a reference to the paralegal-to-lawyer talk above but this is word-for-word description of how I got my job
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 22:56
|
|
|
Do any of the UVA people have access to Elizabeth Scott's Crim Law practice exams or an outline for her class?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 22:56
|
|
|
Martin Random posted:The purpose of the prestige game, of hiring only prestigious lawyers, isn't to find the most competent people. It's to add to the prestige of the firm, which in turn gives the firm access to the prestigious clients, because the executives running the prestigious client companies want to tell their shareholders that they hired only the most the prestigious of firms engaging only the most prestigious of lawyers to handle the company's important matters. This makes it easier for said executives to cover their own asses in case of Things Going Wrong, a service that they will pay dearly for, so long as it is with other people's (shareholder's) money. Martin Now print that out and nail it to the door of Wachtell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
Martin Random posted:Did you even read what I wrote? That's the exact opposite of what I said. If these companies were buying legal services, then the Walmart, Walmart, and Payless LLP would predominate biglaw. But they're not buying legal services. They're buying legitimacy, which comes from prestige. I did and my reply stated that the market for "legitimacy" is not what it once was. Edit: I guess my major point is that the legal profession has to enter at least the 19th or 20th century to stay viable. By refusing to even consider a dedicated employee willing to work extra hard to attend night school because his pedigree is wrong is at the very least offensive. Companies will figure out eventually that a TTT grad and a Harvard grad can copy and paste the same boilerplate. Roger_Mudd fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Mar 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 23:47
|
|