Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: bad ECONOMY = bad FALL 2008 OCIs?  (Read 10272 times)

clee750

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
Re: bad ECONOMY = bad FALL 2008 OCIs?
« Reply #30 on: April 04, 2008, 11:59:00 AM »
haha, firms loose money on first year associates.



themanwithnoname

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 820
    • View Profile
Re: bad ECONOMY = bad FALL 2008 OCIs?
« Reply #31 on: April 04, 2008, 12:15:05 PM »
What are you basing this on?  I'm not challenging it, I'm just curious what factual evidence you have to suggest this.

Firms have billable hours requirements and first year associates are billed at 200-300 an hour, sometimes more.  Multiply that by 1800 (an extremely modest billable requirement) and you are well above what the associate costs the firm.  I simply do not see what you are basing your information off of.  Even a quick and dirty look at what a young associate bills shows profit margin.  I hate to break it to you, but 1/3 of an associate's billables are not going to overhead.  A big firm will have over 500 attorneys, usually 200-300 in a particular office.  Take the overhead and divide it by the total number of employees, weighted based on their salaries.  Your math is ridiculous.

I am getting this from the writer of Adam Smith Esq., who made a presentation on law firm economics and specifically said that the break even point on associates is 3 years. You, as usual, have no idea what you are talking about. Firms spend a huge amount of money on recruiting and training first year associates. Also, weighting overhead by salary makes no sense. Each associate costs as much for overhead, and partners cost less for overhead b/c they pay for their own benefits. You have never worked at a firm, so stop talking out of your ass.

1LMan

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: bad ECONOMY = bad FALL 2008 OCIs?
« Reply #32 on: April 04, 2008, 01:32:14 PM »
I told you I wasn't disagreeing with you, just curious as to how you were getting to your point.  Simmer down.  You obviously don't like being challenged, meanwhile, you produce no actual evidence of what you are saying.

I still don't buy it. By the way, you have no clue where I work and whether I have experience in a law firm now do you? From reading your posts, you are a full-time law student, likely went to law school right out of college which means you have NO experience in the real world so talk about the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to talking out of their ass.

That's some chip on your shoulder, good luck with it junior.

themanwithnoname

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 820
    • View Profile
Re: bad ECONOMY = bad FALL 2008 OCIs?
« Reply #33 on: April 04, 2008, 01:46:49 PM »
I told you I wasn't disagreeing with you, just curious as to how you were getting to your point.  Simmer down.  You obviously don't like being challenged, meanwhile, you produce no actual evidence of what you are saying.

I still don't buy it. By the way, you have no clue where I work and whether I have experience in a law firm now do you? From reading your posts, you are a full-time law student, likely went to law school right out of college which means you have NO experience in the real world so talk about the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to talking out of their ass.

That's some chip on your shoulder, good luck with it junior.

You work at a DC law firm that is not Covington, Williams, or Wilmer. The information I obtained I heard in person. You say you aren't disagreeing me but then staying you still dont buy what I am saying.

1LMan

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: bad ECONOMY = bad FALL 2008 OCIs?
« Reply #34 on: April 04, 2008, 02:03:19 PM »
Right, I don't buy it on an overall level.  I think it is entirely too broad a comment to make generalizing all big law firms.  Also, Covington, Williams, and Wilmer are all going to be unique beasts in Washington.  You are talking about the business strategies of only three large firms and generalizing them in terms of all big law firms.

So what, you went to a firm reception and now you think you are hot *&^% lol?  Give me a break dude.  Come back with some hard evidence and not just your word based off of what you "heard" at one presentation involving three large firms.

thorc954

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 376
    • View Profile
Re: bad ECONOMY = bad FALL 2008 OCIs?
« Reply #35 on: April 04, 2008, 02:08:02 PM »
everything i have ever heard was that firms lose money on associates till for the first couple of years, and, I went to lots of firm receptions :)

http://books.google.com/books?id=bDZsE8a5qVYC&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=loose+money+first+year+associates&source=web&ots=NREUzCsIJn&sig=viM9XEG58TE2VLGyp6PvmchARjc&hl=en

mike4488

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 146
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: bad ECONOMY = bad FALL 2008 OCIs?
« Reply #36 on: April 04, 2008, 02:21:00 PM »
everything i have ever heard was that firms lose money on associates till for the first couple of years, and, I went to lots of firm receptions :)

http://books.google.com/books?id=bDZsE8a5qVYC&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=loose+money+first+year+associates&source=web&ots=NREUzCsIJn&sig=viM9XEG58TE2VLGyp6PvmchARjc&hl=en

Well, I don't know. I've heard that too and mentioned it to my Dad the other day who was a partner at a V50 firm for a number of years and he just laughed and said that is what firms would like you to believe.  They want you to think that they are really investing in you.  While usually 3rd and 4th associates are going to bring in more money than a first year by no means does that mean firms aren't making money off of first years.

Anyways, I'm sure it is different depending on how the firm is run as well. 
Boalt Hall '10

themanwithnoname

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 820
    • View Profile
Re: bad ECONOMY = bad FALL 2008 OCIs?
« Reply #37 on: April 04, 2008, 03:04:11 PM »
Right, I don't buy it on an overall level.  I think it is entirely too broad a comment to make generalizing all big law firms.  Also, Covington, Williams, and Wilmer are all going to be unique beasts in Washington.  You are talking about the business strategies of only three large firms and generalizing them in terms of all big law firms.

So what, you went to a firm reception and now you think you are hot *&^% lol?  Give me a break dude.  Come back with some hard evidence and not just your word based off of what you "heard" at one presentation involving three large firms.

1) the point about those three firms was you said I don't know anything about you. I was pointing out that from your previous posts I do know a few things about you. Secondly, the DC firms I named are the most profitable of the DC firms and the ones most likely to be able to make money off of lower year associates. I did not hear the information from a firm reception but from a presentation by a known expert. And Covington, Wilmer, and Willams are the firms in Washington that count.

1LMan

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: bad ECONOMY = bad FALL 2008 OCIs?
« Reply #38 on: April 04, 2008, 03:07:11 PM »
With regards to the firms being the most profitable.... They are also some of the most selective and therefore are courting H,Y,S grads and possibly throwing out MUCH more money in terms of clerkship bonuses, recruitment efforts, etc . . . .

thorc954

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 376
    • View Profile
Re: bad ECONOMY = bad FALL 2008 OCIs?
« Reply #39 on: April 04, 2008, 03:17:48 PM »
1) the point about those three firms was you said I don't know anything about you. I was pointing out that from your previous posts I do know a few things about you. Secondly, the DC firms I named are the most profitable of the DC firms and the ones most likely to be able to make money off of lower year associates. I did not hear the information from a firm reception but from a presentation by a known expert. And Covington, Wilmer, and Willams are the firms in Washington that count.
[/quote]


my firm counts too, and it isnt covington, wilmer, or williams.