Law School Discussion

LSAT Score Theory

Re: LSAT Score Theory
« Reply #40 on: January 07, 2016, 03:13:42 PM »
No, but you can afford a sports car on a Biglaw salary.

Where do I even start. As someone who has actual experience with the matters being discussed, perhaps I can shed a little light onto this conversation.

Biglaw can come in many shapes and sizes ... well, shapes at least. Cravath and Quinn are not the same as, say, Jackson Lewis. Some BigLaw outfits are regional, some national, some international. Some are general practice, some are a little more specialized. It is a generic term used to roughly state that the place has a lot of attorneys, and pays well, and usually (but not always) is operating out of one or more of the larger legal markets.

Now, do you need a 165+ to work at BigLaw? No. You don't. I've worked at BigLaw, and I know that they don't ask for your LSAT. That doesn't quite end the discussion, however. The most prestigious BigLaw firms hire from the best schools. To get into the best schools, you need a high LSAT. In addition, some hires are made from the very top of other schools (those are usually the 10% plus law review to apply positions). As the LSAT is a decent predictor of law school success, there will be some correlation between doing well on the LSAT and getting a BigLaw job. But it's not close to a prerequisite, just as it's not a prerequisite to go to Harvard to work at Quinn (but it sure does help!).

Now, let's move to the sports car. Many boutique (that's law-speak for really, really small) law firms and mid-size firms will pay you more than enough to get that sports car. If you want to make the really, really big bucks, become a Plaintiff's Attorney. 33% (or whatever) of a bunch of settlements starts to add up. But the dirty secret of BigLaw is that almost none of those attorneys become partners within their own firm. You do the dirty work for a few years, pay off some bills, and then (hopefully) lateral to something more fulfilling. Many of those firms just poach attorneys that have built up their own book of business, or have gained other experience (say, as an AUSA) to become partners. No

Long story short- it's very hard to take your comment credibly.

Yeah, maybe I'm half wrong.  I still think your best shot at getting into Biglaw is scoring a 165 and going to a top twenty school.
admits he has no way of knowing what he talks about, but keeps talking

"There are two types of speakers in the world. Those who speak when they have something to say. And those who just have to say something."

oh, and if you had undiagnosed mental illness.........you wouldn't know.........oh forget it. Troll on.

Re: LSAT Score Theory
« Reply #41 on: January 07, 2016, 03:15:49 PM »
I don't think he ever said he knew what he was talking about he is just saying random stuff on the internet that doesn't make a lot of sense and probably laughing at how much discussion is being generated talking about it. Donald Trump like really.

Re: LSAT Score Theory
« Reply #42 on: January 07, 2016, 03:24:20 PM »
Now, do you need a 165+ to work at BigLaw? No. You don't. I've worked at BigLaw, and I know that they don't ask for your LSAT. That doesn't quite end the discussion, however. The most If you want to make the really, really big bucks, become a Plaintiff's Attorney. 33% (or whatever) of a bunch of settlements starts to add up.

If you graduate from a T14 with good grades (or a T5 with almost any grades), then yes, of course you will have a much better shot at high paying biglaw jobs as opposed to the average graduate of Unknown State U. This is stating the obvious.

Loki's quote above, however, is something that most 0Ls are clueless about. The wealthiest attorneys I've met are guys who learned a particular field of law very well, like consumer class action suits, and struck out on their own. They make the kind of money that would make a biglaw partner tear up. I know a very unassuming divorce lawyer with a small, low key office and a stellar reputation. That guy is a multimillionaire.

The point is that you are unlikely to get wealthy (I mean truly wealthy, not just well off) working for someone else. In law, business, whatever, people can get a good salary working for someone else. They usually don't get rich until they find a way to work for themselves.

Does that mean that you can't get rich as a biglaw partner? Of course not! But, as Loki pointed out, it is unlikely that a newly hired associate will stick around long enough to make partner.


HerculePoirot

  • ****
  • 133
  • One must seek the truth from within--not without
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT Score Theory
« Reply #43 on: January 07, 2016, 04:42:46 PM »
Now, do you need a 165+ to work at BigLaw? No. You don't. I've worked at BigLaw, and I know that they don't ask for your LSAT. That doesn't quite end the discussion, however. The most If you want to make the really, really big bucks, become a Plaintiff's Attorney. 33% (or whatever) of a bunch of settlements starts to add up.

If you graduate from a T14 with good grades (or a T5 with almost any grades), then yes, of course you will have a much better shot at high paying biglaw jobs as opposed to the average graduate of Unknown State U. This is stating the obvious.

Loki's quote above, however, is something that most 0Ls are clueless about. The wealthiest attorneys I've met are guys who learned a particular field of law very well, like consumer class action suits, and struck out on their own. They make the kind of money that would make a biglaw partner tear up. I know a very unassuming divorce lawyer with a small, low key office and a stellar reputation. That guy is a multimillionaire.

The point is that you are unlikely to get wealthy (I mean truly wealthy, not just well off) working for someone else. In law, business, whatever, people can get a good salary working for someone else. They usually don't get rich until they find a way to work for themselves.

Does that mean that you can't get rich as a biglaw partner? Of course not! But, as Loki pointed out, it is unlikely that a newly hired associate will stick around long enough to make partner.

You can purchase a lot more with a six figure salary.

HerculePoirot

  • ****
  • 133
  • One must seek the truth from within--not without
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT Score Theory
« Reply #44 on: January 07, 2016, 04:44:56 PM »
I don't think he ever said he knew what he was talking about he is just saying random stuff on the internet that doesn't make a lot of sense and probably laughing at how much discussion is being generated talking about it. Donald Trump like really.

Prestige is important.  It attracts reliable clientele.  Nobody wants crummy clients.

Re: LSAT Score Theory
« Reply #45 on: January 07, 2016, 05:48:52 PM »
Prestige is important.  It attracts reliable clientele.  Nobody wants crummy clients.

No, it doesn't.

Most of your clients will have no clue where you went school, nor will they care. As far as most clients are concerned, Harvard and Arizona State are pretty much the same thing. They will come to you either via referral, because you have a good rep, or because you were the first name in the Yellow Pages. Not because of where you went to school.

At a big firm where the clients themselves might be Ivy League grads, there could be a preference for pedigrees among the clientele. But even so, I can tell you this: I worked at a firm with both Ivy League grads as well as lawyers who went to no-name schools, and I never once heard of a clent saying "No, I don't want that guy. I want a Harvard grad." Never happened. At a small firm or solo practice, even less so.

Re: LSAT Score Theory
« Reply #46 on: January 07, 2016, 09:27:52 PM »
Prestige is important.  It attracts reliable clientele.  Nobody wants crummy clients.

No, it doesn't.

Most of your clients will have no clue where you went school, nor will they care. As far as most clients are concerned, Harvard and Arizona State are pretty much the same thing. They will come to you either via referral, because you have a good rep, or because you were the first name in the Yellow Pages. Not because of where you went to school.

At a big firm where the clients themselves might be Ivy League grads, there could be a preference for pedigrees among the clientele. But even so, I can tell you this: I worked at a firm with both Ivy League grads as well as lawyers who went to no-name schools, and I never once heard of a clent saying "No, I don't want that guy. I want a Harvard grad." Never happened. At a small firm or solo practice, even less so.
I suspect you may be right about this being Donald Trump