Law School Discussion

Biglaw isn't the place you "go to".  It's the place you "come from".  Although I have no legal experience, I do have a lot of corporate experience and there are some companies like this.  Some consulting firms, P&G, IBM, General Electric, etc.

This is generally right, but the market for laterals is, in its own way, a bright spot for the right candidate.  The essential trick is to be independently valuable.  Usually this is through a proven skill, such as x area of law.  Occasionally it can be specialized connections, but most often it is simply--well, not simply--an expertise.  If you can show that expertise to the right partners, you might just be in.  Paradoxically, the level of the hiring biglaw firm isn't all that important.  In fact, they're usually the ones on the hunt. 

As a lateral, you'll usually work with a recruiter.  If you've not yet had the experience to develop that area-specific expertise, such as just a single year, that should be the focus--but it's still possible to develop contacts with recruiters, and it's possible a position will open up and, if the stars are properly aligned, that could be that.

In terms of approach and interviews (and an excellent set of excerpts by a biglaw hiring partner), check out Insider's Guide to Getting a Big Firm Job.  Valuable for small law too, but especially important for the former.

Best of luck,

Thane.

See my point, here?  There are a lot of things where, sorry, but "good enough" is good enough.  I just brought up an excellent point of perhaps the nation's most successful trial lawyer and not only didn't he really give a crap about getting a maximum score on the BAR EXAM (and I love how the weasly rationalizaions started about that one... give it a rest.  If you have to give 100% to ANYTHING related to the law, you sure as hell would have to give 100% on passing the damned bar. 

Had to chuckle here. Once upon a time I knew someone who seemingly spent as much time calculating the lowest score he could get in each section of the bar exam to pass with the absolute minimum total score as he actually spent studying.  He did manage to pass on the fourth go.

If you're saying that if you don't study a gozillion hours, then you're a slacker who will never make anything of yourself in the law because a lawyer does everything he ever does at 100%, then all I gotta ask is, what year did you win the Heisman?

As to slackers, there's a book out (Slacker's Guide to Law School, by Juan Doria) that speaks to this as well.  I liked Doria's book as it was funny and at times poignant, but more to the point here, his epilogue makes plain just why this is important.  It's not that one cannot be successful (as that term is usually defined)--although the odds are increasingly against it--but rather that there are deeper questions.  Among them, chances are if one is to do well *and* to be happy, one should choose a vocation that at least somewhat comports with a true interest.  Lacking that, the odds of a successful career are diminished, and the odds of a happy one are all but vanquished.

If one begins to study an LSAT book and realizes it's dreadful, that's not a good long-term indicator for the "L" part.  If one is spending just an hour a day, one question is "why?"  Is it boring?  If so, back to part one.  Is there not enough time?  Is it still the eighth grade?  And so on.  If, however, one finds the patterns in the LSAT interesting--fascinating, even--well, one hour is just too short, yes?  So, quite apart from a smart investment, it's also a fair sign.

Is one better off graduating from a T1 school top 1/3 of class but with NO Law Review or Moot Court  OR  is one better off staying at a T3 school, again top 1/3 of class but also having Law Review and Moot court experience?

Along the lines of the other comments, consider that it is not at all automatic (or even probable) that the options are doing-well-in-a-lesser-school OR doing-less-well-in-a-greater-school.  That's not how law school grades (or law review or moot court) work.   

These are separate factors, and are best viewed in light of how each affects the individual student.  What is your goal, and how will each (rank, law review, etc.) affect you?

I'm new to this web site. I am starting to seriously think about law as a post-graduate plan and I am a junior at Cornell studying Economics and English literature. I am a self-proclaimed slacker, and my gpa can show for it. I hope to graduate with around a 3.0 (my English grades are much better than my Econ grades), and I have 2 questions:

1. Can I apply to Law schools with my English major gpa and not Econ?

2. Does coming from an Ivy help my chances at getting into a top law school regardless of the fact that I don't have a stellar gpa?

No, and not really.  In fact, #2 can be counter-productive, if they get a sense of your essential over-indulged slacker-hood.  Absent other compelling reasons, they'll want to favor the single-mother immigrant entrepreneur.  (Yes, I have had just such a person in my class, and yes, she blew the curve for everyone.) 

However . . . admissions officers will be looking a course-by-course grades (if your LSAT warrants the deeper look), so that's where you can point out meaningful distinctions.  This, after all, is what lawyering is.

Your single way to show them is to ace your LSAT.  Do that, and write up how you "came to," and you've a shot.

Once you're in, try Slacker's Guide to Law School: Success without Stress, (mentioned elsewhere).

Thane.

I think you should apply broadly.  Since you have a class rank, I'm assuming you don't go to Yale.  In my experience, though this has probably changed since I was applying in the fall of 2007, it was fairly easy for URMs on the Journal to get clerkships as long as they applied broadly.  I imagine the same would hold true for H and S.  Of course, times have changed since then, but I still think you can probably find a good clerkship if you apply broadly.  If not, work for a year or two and try again (and let judges know in your cover letter that you're willing to be considered a year out as well).

Would certainly agree.  Also, at this level the decisions are not automated, nor even particularly linear.  Your stats put you in the running.  Once you're in the judge's chambers, it's pretty much a fresh start from there.  I can recommend two sources for this latter hurdle.  Insider's Guide to Getting a Big Firm Job has several excellent sections on this (and interviewing with a judge is not all that dissimilar from interviewing for a firm or other law job).  Also, Morten Lund's first book, on practice, will be a good look into the mind of an appellate judge, times two.  His book on memos will be even more important once you start your clerkship.

To emphasize A's point, don't not apply because you think it's a long shot, if it's a reasonable shot and it's a judge or office you would like to serve.  If so, make that known, and go for it!

Best of luck,

Thane.