Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: MP's Thread, or how to get paid $75K to sit around: also known as UChicago 2010  (Read 421362 times)

buffettologie

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
    • Email
The real question is whether BigLaw can ever return to its 2004-07 form.  Some people, unlike Nerfco, say "absolutely not" because the transactional work that they relied on will be gone.  I don't know enough about BigLaw practice areas to comment, but it seems like that would be central.  Maybe it was merely a bubble of work.

Classic collective action, no?  Howrey is screwing themselves because nobody wants 100k and "training" when they could have 160k and billing.  I don't even plan to interview with them or Biddle.

I want to see some of the TTTs get royally screwed ITE, if only to reduce the Law School tuition monster.  The JDUnderground types shouldn't be scammed.  That, or some legislative student loan reform.

ETA: Nerfco   ???


I don't necessarily think that transactions are never coming back, quite to the contrary. I just think that before they do there is going to be some serious contraction in the Biglaw world and there are literally thousands of very well qualified people ready, willing and able to do the jobs that you're hoping to get. The oversupply of similarly qualified people will lead to downward pressure on salaries, combined with pressure from clients etc.... same old story.

When we started this summer we had a presentation which showed the projected hours for all of the different offices of our firm. The slide wasn't given to us and it was only up on the screen for a minute, but the firm as a whole was off 40% in terms of hours from 2008 (not the best year ever). And I'm at a "safe" firm.
U of C 2010

,.,.,.;.,.,.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2016
    • View Profile
I agree, but don't there still have to be different classes?  The 2011 BigLaw class may be smaller, but it still has to exist.  Although there are people ready and willing, they're third or fourth years, and it wouldn't make sense to hire them in lieu of younger associates.

On the other hand, I'm assuming that the lock-step model won't cease to exist -- another possibility.

Let's hope for student loan reform.

Hipcathobbes: of course I want contraction for self-interested reasons, but I also feel that law schools' reported salaries are fradulent, that these schools lure in unqualified applicants, and that they should cease to exist (or charge far less than their current rates).  People are already getting screwed with 120k in debt from TTTs.  If firms stop recruiting the top 10% of, say, Kent, it would mean the end of the model, and ultimately the best for all parties.

nerfco

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • U.Chi '10
    • View Profile
I agree, but don't there still have to be different classes?  The 2011 BigLaw class may be smaller, but it still has to exist. 

One word: deferrals. The class of 2011 doesn't have to exist, since we (c/o 2010) will be starting when you would, and the class of 2012 can start as normal. Obviously it wouldn't be that black-and-white though, since firms would realize they could pick up much higher-quality students than normal, etc.

That said, you'll all be fine. And by all, I mean most. Probably about the same number will be fine as in our class.

clairel

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 981
  • UChicago 3L
    • View Profile
    • Email
I agree, but don't there still have to be different classes?  The 2011 BigLaw class may be smaller, but it still has to exist. 

One word: deferrals. The class of 2011 doesn't have to exist, since we (c/o 2010) will be starting when you would, and the class of 2012 can start as normal. Obviously it wouldn't be that black-and-white though, since firms would realize they could pick up much higher-quality students than normal, etc.

That said, you'll all be fine. And by all, I mean most. Probably about the same number will be fine as in our class.

also, plenty of people in my class are deferred until sometime next year or january of 2011. i think if you're close to the median and bid on a lot of firms (and figure out what to do and what not to do in interviews), you should be okay. i did around 30 interviews even though ocs recommends around 15, but i wanted the bay area.

,.,.,.;.,.,.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2016
    • View Profile
January of 2011?  Nearly two years after graduation?  Wow.

Clairel: can you suggest what to do and what not to do in interviews?

,.,.,.;.,.,.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2016
    • View Profile
Just traded Drew Brees for Chris Johnson.  Taking questions.  (Still have Warner and Carson Palmer as QBs)

IlliniBoy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
    • Email
OK move, depending upon your RB situation and league point structure. Definitely made your RB situation less risky; Johnson has a low standard deviation on rushes per game, so you know what you're going to be getting each week. Normally RBs on overperforming teams from the year before are bad bets because RBs thrive in the 4th quarter when the winning team is looking to milk the clock, but the Titans were careful to save him for when he was needed, so his numbers look legit. And trading Brees now is definitely a "sell high" situation.

But: Warner's production could fall off a cliff at any time given his age and injury history. There's a good chance that Carson Palmer is going to be your QB by late in the season, which is fine, and they should be down in games a fair deal so there should be passing yards there, but the injury situation is real there as well, and the Bengals don't have the weapons on offense they used to. All in all, I'd say a good trade if you had a major hole in your first RB position, but if he's just your number two, you may be exposing yourself to too much risk. At the very least, I'd look to add Matt Leinart as insurance if you can spare the bench space.

,.,.,.;.,.,.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2016
    • View Profile
That's a rock solid analysis.  Good work.  I am worried about both Warner and Palmer, but I figure that at least one of them will put up consistent numbers throughout the season.  Coincidentally, Ochocinco is also on my team, and I expect to see him get many passes because of the Bengals' otherwise weak receiving corp.

I had a gaping hole at RB.  I drafted tenth out of ten and picked Brees.  The other nine players took the RB studs like Chris Johnson, Turner, and Peterson.  By the time I got the twentieth pick, I had to settle for Joseph Addai.   :-X

My TE is Greg Olsen, however.  And I have Ochocinco, Houshmandzadesh, Eddie Royal, and Desean Jackson.

IlliniBoy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
    • Email
Why didn't you pick until the 20th? Almost all leagues institute a snake draft, so pick 10 gets pick 11 as well, then doesn't pick again until 30 and 31. If you had to pick at the end of the round every time, you're dead already, no matter how well you drafted.

I'm thinking of doing an auction draft this year with a $100 buy in and 12-16 players. I've never done an auction league, but it seems like there's more strategy that goes into it than with a normal draft.

,.,.,.;.,.,.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2016
    • View Profile
I dunno.  This was a custom league on ESPN. 

I've done a mock auction draft.  It's really hard and really strategic.  You can overbid early and die with a flurry of late $1 picks to fill up your roster.