Wednesday, September 12, 2012

How many people are getting real legal jobs?

Real legal job = Full-time non-temp position requiring bar admission.

As a baseline, we can start with DJM's calculation that, according to the stats schools reported to the ABA and NALP, 59.8% of the class of 2011 whose employment status was known got full-time jobs requiring bar admission.  But it's clear the real number is far lower than that.

Factors that lower it:

(1) Six percent of the class had an unknown employment status.  It would be optimistic to assume that a third of those people got real legal jobs.

(2)  The default assumptions used by career service offices when they have incomplete data regarding employment status (which is often) is that the missing data is positive.  In other words, when there's ambiguity about whether a graduate is working full-time, or is in a long-term or bar required position, that graduate's job will be coded as full-time long-term bar-required.  This significantly overstates the number of graduates who have real legal jobs.  These assumptions are especially dangerous when applied to jobs with firms of 2-10 attorneys, which accounted for more than two out of every five law firm jobs class of 2011 graduates reported getting. Some unknown percentage of these jobs are law clerk positions, eat what you kill arrangements, or two or three new graduates sharing office space.  These distinctions are especially likely not to be made on NALP forms.

(3)  Evidence of employment is treated cumulatively.  Evidence of unemployment is not.  What this means is that a graduate who reports a positive employment status at any point between the spring of the graduate's 3L year and nine months after graduation is treated as employed, period. Graduates who report not being employed will have their status re-checked to see if it has changed.

(4) What counts as non-temporary (long-term) employment by ABA and NALP definitions doesn't actually track with a real-world definition of a non-temp job.  A job is considered long-term under these definitions if it has a duration of at least one year.  This means judicial clerkships are treated as real legal jobs, even though most of these positions are state district court clerkships, which in palmier days were often reasonable launching pads for legal careers, especially in regard to government jobs, but which under present conditions have morphed for most graduates into one-year way stations on the road to legal unemployment.

Note too that a certain number of "big law" positions in the NALP stats aren't really big law jobs at all.  A law professor writes:



At [mid first tier school], we have quite a number of 2009-2011 grads working with Baker & Hostetler.  Those are one-year contract positions, with the possibility of renewal, paying $75,000 per year for document work--but with benefits and a real office.  No one knows yet where--if anywhere--those jobs will lead.  Yet those are better than average in terms of salary!  (And they go into both our BigLaw counts and our salary averages.)

And then there are the folks going to the back offices of WilmerHale (Dayton Ohio) and Orrick (Wheeling W Va).  They're permanent, indefinite term jobs with starting salaries of $55-60,000 and benefits.  But where do those jobs possibly lead?  One can't be a discovery lawyer forever--and even discovery is getting more automated.
How many of the 4,767 jobs (10.7% of all law graduates) that law schools reported graduates of the class of 2011 got with firms of more than 100 attorneys were in this category? Nobody knows. (It says a lot that most current law graduates would consider these "premium" document review positions -- which at least feature one-year contracts, benefits, and offices -- to be "good" jobs).

Also, several hundred "full-time long-term jobs requiring bar admission" were one-year law school funded "jobs" designed to pump up NALP stats at places like Columbia and Virginia.

(5) 2.5% of the class of 2011 reported starting solo practices.  This counts as a real legal job if you're shilling for Cooley et. al. Otherwise not so much.

(6) Intentional misreporting on the part of law schools.  Confirming whether a school has been lying about the entering credentials of its students is easy, assuming someone bothers to check at some point.  Yet a couple of schools have been caught doing just that. Confirming that a school has been intentionally misreporting the employment status of its graduates would be difficult to do, even if the data reported by schools to the ABA and NALP were subjected to some kind of auditing, which they aren't.

All this adds up to the conclusion that, while we don't know what percentage of graduates are getting real legal jobs, it's far less than three out of five.  My back of the envelope estimate would be 35% to 40%. 



91 comments:

  1. Piss on these scammers. Let's burn this mofo down pookie!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do these avaricious institutions of "higher learning" count an attorney with an ad (advertising shitlaw solo practice areas), yet no clients, on LegalZoom, Craigslist or Shpoonkle as being employed in a job requiring a JD?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm going with 1 out of 4. The 1s being people with connections.

    Sometime do a post on the impact of "tort reform" which basically put huge numbers of Ps and Ds out of work, people suffering without compensation and a bunch of insurance money to be poured into the housing bubble.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with most of what you said, but I don't see how number one would lower the real percentage of people getting jobs "Six percent of the class had an unknown employment status. It would be optimistic to assume that a third of those people got real legal jobs."

    Remember none of those 6% are counted as being employed in long-term jobs requiring bar passage. So I'm not sure how more of those students reporting would bring the overall number down.

    Also, I'm not sure law clerk positions are counted as long-term jobs requiring bar passage considering people can get those jobs while they are still in school. I guess we just don't know how that is being reported.

    Other points you made are solid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The initial 59.8% figure is the percentage of 2011 grads whose employment status is known who are in full-time legal jobs. The six percent of law graduates whose employment status wasn't known aren't in the denominator.

      Delete
  5. Your 'back of the envelope' calculation is closed to the figure I got, LawProf, when I informally analyzed my graduating class w/in one year of graduation. About 30% had gotten real legal jobs (ie: working as an attorney) but of those, some were solo practitioners and people earning less than $12,000 in their real legal jobs. That seems to be the more accurate figure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mind sharing the general nature of the school? (E.g., top 10, top school in state, TTT)

      Delete
  6. I have been stuck on the document review circuit for close to 8 years. I long ago gave up the hope of being able to have my own office, or benefits. Now, I just pray that I don't get sick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you at least tried working your way up in document review? (Serious question, not making fun or judging).

      Delete
    2. "Have you at least tried working your way up in document review?"

      And how does that happen? Have u ever been involved in that shit? Do you realize what goes on? How that is a no track career? The percentage of doc reviewers moving onto perm work in a firm is smaller than the amount of TTT law grads getting big law jobs.

      Delete
    3. Doc Review --> Quality Control --> Team Lead --> Project Manager --> Staff Attorney, Ediscovery Consultant, etc.

      This kind of thing happens frequently. Hence my reference to moving up IN document review. I understand that virtually no one makes the jump from doc review to traditional firm attorney, but traditional attorney work sucks anyway.

      Delete
  7. My mistake, I didn’t look at his calculations.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree that "real legal jobs" means long-term, full-time jobs requiring a law degree. But shouldn't the definition of a real legal job include a predictable income? This would eliminate pretty much all solos just out of law school, as well as a substantial number of graduates in small firms (e.g. those who earn on an eat-what-you-kill basis). Once these are factored out, I agree--about a third of law school graduates are getting real legal jobs.

    And this doesn't even consider whether those real legal jobs pay enough to justify getting a JD in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "And this doesn't even consider whether those real legal jobs pay enough to justify getting a JD in the first place".

      Bam Bam makes a crucial point here that goes to the heart of the issue.

      Of the minority of law graduates who actually do obtain legitimate full-time legal employment, how many conducted a 4 month job search only to obtain a position that pays 50K for 60 hours a week, which translates to roughly $17-18/hour?

      Delete
    2. I agree with this point. what is the best way to calculate this?

      I know there has been data about the number of biglaw SAs for 2011 which was lower than I thought. But I haven't seen this number of actual wages calculated.

      Delete
  9. The Baker Hostetler jobs are not technically a one year contract position. They just gave "one year" as a vague indication that this will be long term, but is not an associate to partner position. It pays very well, has many perks, and the staff attorneys are treated well and included in the firm as employees. It will definitely last longer than a year. No one knows where any "legal" jobs are going to "lead" these days in this rocky economy, so you can't really be too hard on the job. It IS BIGLAW ... It's just that the profession is rapidly changing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the Baker Hostetler positions should count in the numbers. I interviewed, albeit unsuccessfully, for one of these "one-year" Baker Hostetler positions as well. The described work seemed interesting and there was plenty of it.

      While these positions are technically "document review", this was a smart move by BH in this "new normal." There is absolutely no way that a first year associate can bring in $120k+ to justify his starting salary, and there probably never was before. The work is not much different than something a traditional associate would perform. And BH was setting up these positions in midwestern markets with inexpensive office leases-many of the otherwise desirable, downtown high-rises have high vacancies from the recession. Nevertheless, I am glad that Professor Campos mentioned them. That document review positions are viewed as the premium speaks volumes about today's legal job market.

      Delete
    2. Just to be clear, I would count these positions as real legal jobs, but not as biglaw jobs. Unfortunately in the NALP stats they're not differentiated from partner-track associate positions with 501+ lawyer firms.

      Delete
    3. Now, that's an interesting spin: count these people as working in the biggest firms. Do they also count if they are working there as janitors?

      Mind you, "partner-track" positions realistically aren't on the partner track either.


      Delete
  10. Look at this slimeball Yale and Georgetown educated lawyer try to declare bankruptcy

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/business/shedding-student-loans-in-bankruptcy-is-an-uphill-battle.html?pagewanted=2

    Debtors also stretch the truth in other directions. In 2008, a federal bankruptcy judge in the Northern District of Georgia expressed barely disguised disgust in deciding a case involving a 32-year-old, Mercedes-driving federal public defender with degrees from Yale and Georgetown. With nearly $114,000 in total household income, the woman’s financial situation was far from hopeless, despite her $172,000 in student loan debt.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Firms here in New York are nickle-and-diming staff attorneys (or whatever other euphemism they're using) in exactly the same way as Wilmer and Orrick are doing in West Virginia. You certainly don't need a low cost-of-living to justify paying j.d. holders well below market.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'd be curious to know the actual stats on how many clerkships are gateways to other permanent legal positions. I was still under the impression that most were.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a question I am interested in too. I know a couple people who did federal district clerkships after they struck out at OCIs or were no-offered by their firms. After completing their clerkships, they have not been able to find BigLaw jobs.

      Delete
    2. Those firms want certain types of people, which often are not the types (competent, capable) that get federal district clerkships.

      Delete
  13. I had a fed clerkship. It opened many doors, which led to a nice career in public law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And how many fresh grads did your department hire this year? How many people applied for each position?

      Delete
  14. ***Cooley is significantly decreasing the amount of scholarship money they are offering going forward. I wonder how much of a hit enrollment will take. I think a 160 LSAT used to give people a full ride. Now it is only a 60% scholarship. Could this be was other schools start doing going foward to cover operating expenses?

    http://www.cooley.edu/finaid/scholarships_new.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was 100% just a few months ago, when I first looked at this dump of a law school. Now 100% doesn't exist, even for the very top students—while an LSAT score of 149 gets one 15% as an "honors" scholarship.

      Note too the huge difference that a statistically insignificant point on the LSAT makes. A score of 152 gets one 15% off, whereas a score of 153 gets one 30% off. Yet statistically those scores are indistinguishable. Of course, they're quite distinguishable in the data used by U.S. News.…

      Delete
  15. It's also worth estimating how many people with real jobs are in because of nepotism, affirmative action, or because they are pretty girls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's pretty much impossible to do.

      Delete
  16. Law schools are graduating just over 44,000 per year, so 35-40 percent would be 15,400 to 17,600 real legal jobs, dismal numbers indeed.

    And how many of those 15,400 to 17,600 jobs were snagged by graduates of the very top law schools?

    The T13 (the traditional T14, with Georgetown stricken from the list) graduated 4,140 students in 2011. Is it fair to assume that two out of three grads of these elite schools got real legal jobs? (According to Law School Transparency, all these schools scored above 75 percent full-time legal employment, though a few schools just barely exceeded that mark– and, of course, that stat must include many of the non-real “jobs” described in this post).

    Two-thirds of 4,140 is 2760.

    Therefore, if you are one of the 40,000 graduating from a non-T13, the number of real legal jobs go down to 12,640 to 14,840, or 31.6% to 37.1%

    dybbuk

    ReplyDelete
  17. Here's an analogy: Spend $150,000 on a prestigious automobile and far less than 3 times out of 5 it won't start. Add annual interest payments and that it also can't be traded in or sold.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And throw in an asshole salesman who, after you find out your car won't start, insists you are greedy for wanting a working car.

      Delete
  18. Meanwhile, at my alma mater, the University of Oklahoma, the market dictates that the former dean, in his Dean Emeritus capacity, has seen his pay drop from 28k/month to 23k/month in this new fiscal year that started in August.

    https://arra.ok.gov/analytics/saw.dll?PortalGo&_scid=lGqwp2GJgAg

    See: A M Coats

    All the while, the new dean, Mr. Harroz, continues to make his 27k/month.

    That's a lot of money in Sooner country, especially considering Mr. Coat's salary throughout his long tenure which brought about a new library and steep increases in tuition, again because the market dictated. I'm sure he continues to hold on to many other perks as well.

    Graduate outcomes, even by rosy NALP standards, do not completely illustrate the fine work these gentlemen have performed.

    I would like to move on, but the level of greed displayed by these people is particularly distracting.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 10:47 AM--but it will work in Nebraska!!!

    ReplyDelete
  20. 10:47AM--and the car is versatile. You can use it as shelter too!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also consider that in twenty years someone who bought a POS car will be doing just fine. The car might have never worked and there's a good chance it will be scrapped by then, but at least the car will be paid off by the time the owner is in her 40s!

      Delete
  21. speaking of biglaw....

    http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/more-bad-news-for-biglaw-waning-confidence-spells-trouble-ahead/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In today's metaphysical lesson we learn that headlines don't necessarily disclose the actual content of the underlying article, which may, in fact, contradict the nominal headline.

      Delete
  22. Get back to us in 20 years... I'll bet most of the law grads are doing just fine then.

    Except for JD Painter. He's out of luck.

    The rest of the people complaining, you're assuming the worst far too quickly. Your loans could be forgiven, you could get a public interest job when the economy is going full steam and people don't want them anymore, and at worst you use IBR and dump your balance in your 40s. I'm sure, by then, you won't have to declare your forgiven student loan debt (IBR version) in your gross income either.

    Make lemonade, bitches.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're assuming the best far too quickly. Namely that: 1) the legal job market will recover, and 2) IBR won't disappear on a political whim.

      But I know, I know, we should all just shut up and let you keep running your taxpayer subsidized scam.

      Delete
    2. And just for accuracy's sake, for most debtors that graduated before 2011 and are currently on IBR, they would have to graduate law school at the age of 24 for the amount to be forgiven while they are still in their 40s.

      Delete
    3. Loan forgiveness in one's fifties doesn't sound so bad. One could still live a good 25 years free from indentured servitude to the federal government.

      We'll all be fine. Now let's shut up so X can keep cashing his paychecks.

      Delete
    4. "your loans could be forgiven..." And dumped on the taxpayer, who is exactly who if not you and me? The country is broke, busted, tapped out; there is no more ability to absorb debts like these just so a law prof can make 250k rather than 80k.

      Delete
    5. Sorry but your health is shot in your 50s from all the stress of your career.

      Delete
  23. I wheent tuuu thuh luh schuuul aahhnd annd it waas reel good that I wheeent tuuu the luhh schuuul beecuause....beecuause it made me reeely reely smarrhhdt ahhnnd the doctuur says that algernon is douing fine and preheety soon...preety soohhuun I will have uhn uperashion that wiil maahke me smarrrdt eenufh tuuu payy mmunny i o tuu the guhvurnmeunt.

    Charlie

    ReplyDelete
  24. So can we all agree that the T14 is an even money gamble on the $160K?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only if you raise the $160,000 to $200,000 or $250,000.

      And take out Yale because it is hard to know about Yale.

      Delete
  25. @ JP

    Pick a card!

    http://www.hondomagic.com/html/pick_a_card1.html

    ReplyDelete
  26. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/09/12/recent-law-grads-to-prospective-students-stop-obsessing-over-the-rankings/?mod=e2tw

    Before going to law school, rankings was the most important factor to students and debt was the least important. After law school debt and job placements were the more important than rankings. I guess that is because the law schools taught the students to "think like a lawyer." A.K.A this is how you rip people off.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I just hyped you on College Confidential.

    If we all work together we can turn you into a Cultural Icon.

    http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/financial-aid-scholarships/1390427-25-deep-debt-3.html

    You've got the right combination of story and performance art.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think an ode to the guys on the Dakota fracking rig would be a better use of his time.

      Delete
  28. I meant that to be @JD Painterguy.

    ReplyDelete
  29. No, I have made a lot of mistsakes in my real life and I am very flawed, and no icon by any stretch, and I am no magician.

    If I can create literature and make people think, then maybe my life has been worth something.

    If I can show that personal responsibility has to be met by institutional responsibility, then maybe that is carrying humanity one step slowly forward.

    And I challenge anyone out there to design and implement a better society, and with step by step instructions as to how it will all be done.

    A simple question. And with no simple answers.

    OY! (And I'm Catholic:)




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK. You can just be a secular piece of performance art, then.

      You've got a real talent for random blogging and debt discussing.

      Delete
  30. Even with T14, you have a risk if you are fired that you become a document review person or staff attorney. Some of the fired recover nicely, but some don't. Firings are commonplace in BigLaw.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We're only talking about the first million.

      After that, you're on your own.

      Delete
  31. Oh TLS.

    Today someone actually posted that they are happy to pay sticker at NYU because they would rather have $250,000 of debt and a job then $80,000 of debt and no job.

    They are just going to apply early admissions and be done with the whole law school application thing.

    Then someone posted in the thread making fun of a frequent poster who tries to tell people that sticker at less than HYS is a huge mistake.

    These people not only ignore advice, they mock people who try to tell them things.

    They really do think that people are exaggerating.

    I started to post in the thread, but what to say?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You need to tell them that they can have the same experience my getting massive cash advances on their credit cards, flying to Vegas, renting a primo suite, going down to the tables and putting all of their money on red or black at the Roulette wheel.

      If they lose, their debt will be discharagable in bankruptcy as opposed to their law school loans.

      Also, they get to keep an extra three years of their life.

      Delete
    2. I know but that gambler logic doesn't really sink it. These college kids think they are buying a golden ticket if they get a CCN school. ( I realize that CCN is creation of TLS that may not even be valid anymore because Chicago seems to be a disaster again this year. Hard to tell exactly not a lot of people are posting about their experience.)

      Maybe lawprof can do a post about applying early admission?

      I don't know, I get that culture shock thing when I go back and forth between these two websites, TLS kids are working their ass off to try to score the highest possible LSAT to try to get into a good school. They are completely focused on rankings and a little focused on jobs.

      Then you see the 2L OCI threads where some people do really well and many other people do much worse than they expected. Some people have even posted that the job market is worse than they thought.



      Delete
    3. Continued from above, sorry

      I want to say ; How could you possibly not understand how terrible the job market is? Did you really believe that above median at a T14 (or even top 15%) guarantees you a job?

      Delete
    4. Well, at least they're better off than young Frenchmen being fed into the trenches of WWI.

      They were excited to go to war until they got to war and realized that it was very boring, very terrifying, and made their friends very dead.

      Delete
    5. Hi, I'm the OP on that TLS post, and I'd like to know what you personally think I should do as opposed to NYU sticker. Cardozo full tuition? Not go to law school? Open to suggestions.

      Delete
    6. Also, I've been out of college for three years, and I've worked in the legal field for 4 years.

      Delete
    7. 10:01 AM/OP,

      I highly suggest posting this question in the comment section of this blog's most recent post. You will get honest answers.

      Delete
    8. 10:01 AM/OP

      Maybe email lawprof and he can do a column about your situation. If not, you need to post in the comments of the most recent blog post for the commentors to see it.

      Delete
    9. Columbia has significantly better job stats than NYU or Chicago. That being said, maybe 20% or even 30% of the class at Columbia seems not to have a good legal job - federal clerkship or larger law firm. Maybe there are a few good government or in house jobs or similar jobs (hard to tell) in that 30%, but a big number in there is also law school funded jobs.

      Delete
  32. http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=193638

    There is the thread. Her stats are 172 3.4

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok, now she is saying that if she doesn't get PI she will just do biglaw for 3 years and then go on IBR.

      IBR - even t6 grads are going to school relying on it. They don't think they will ever have to pay the money back.

      Delete
    2. Sounds reasonable. What could possibly go wrong with that plan? It's grounded and stress tested using various economic projections.

      Just like the initial B.S. in Ancient Egyptian History that cost $100,000.

      That $100,000 was just a down payment for the Golden Ticket to the T6.

      The sad thing is that unlike the housing bubble, as the law school pyramid scheme becomes even more top heavy, people continue to be asset stripped even as the value of the degree declines.

      Delete
  33. My wife just reminded me that we would have $120,000 more money if I hadn't taken out law school loans.

    I haven't mentioned this website.

    She's pointed this out because she's in my office faxing reams of evidence for me. I just overloaded the new fax/copier's memory.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Did you spend saving for law school? Or is that your debt? Sorry I don't remember your story exactly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I ran up $120,000 in debt and then spent four years (starting salary of $80,000) getting rid of it by paying it off at $4,000 per month, right after we got married.

      Granted, at the time, my lowest interest rate was 6.25% and the highest was nearly 10% thanks to Alan "Bubbles" Greenspan.

      Delete
  35. I love the Alan "Bubbles" Greenspan line....so so true.....he was lauded as a "hero" for getting the economy through the 1987 downturn and supposedly supervised unprecedented expansion through the 1990's and was even credited with saving significant damage from the sequelae of the "tech bubble" of the late 1990's and on and on. Old, and I do mean it literally, "Bubbles" was perceived as a guru by Congress who deferred to his every suggestion, desire and move. Old "Bubbles" then set in motion, yea even de facto created, then failed to notice, the housing bubble and confesses that he didn't understand what was going on with the "new instruments" (derivatives, securitizations and credit swaps, etc.) until 2006...so sad, too late "Bubbles." In the end old "Bubbles" proved himself far less prescient than he was previously perceived. In short, the sh*t sure appears to have hit the fan now thanks in large part to "Bubbles." "Bubbles" was certainly no godsend to the present generation coming of age as well as no godsend to those of us who just followed the baby boomers...unless we stand to inherit from the baby boomers a bit of the wealth many accumulated at the expense of succeeding generations. We inherited a hell of a mess due in large part to the reckless policies of "Bubbles" and his gang. In my opinion, no single character has supervised, and yea even causedl, such economic dislocation and wealth destruction without causing a physical war.

    ReplyDelete
  36. (September 12, 2012, 10:44 PM ET) -- An Illinois state judge on Tuesday threw out a putative class action against DePaul University College of Law accusing the school of using misleading graduate employment data to fraudulently lure prospective students.

    Judge Neil H. Cohen said in an order that the plaintiffs failed to show why they relied on the school’s statistics without conducting their own independent research using publicly available information and that they failed to show that the data was inaccurate.

    The plaintiffs, graduates of the law school, claimed the data was presented to them as prospective students in such a way that led them to believe they would land permanent, full-time and well-paying jobs for which a law degree was required upon graduation.

    “Plaintiffs have failed to identify any statement made by DePaul which predicted [the] plaintiffs’ odds of obtaining employment as a full-time lawyer,” he said.

    The data actually included jobs that required no law degree and included part-time, temporary, internship, research assistant or other “make work” positions, including some provided by the university itself, according to the order.

    The plaintiffs said the school’s job statistics did not include data on how many graduates were placed in jobs requiring a law degree, did not mention that the data came only from voluntarily submitted survey responses, that only a small percentage of graduates responded to the survey and that the data had not been audited or otherwise verified.

    They also claimed that DePaul knew its prospective students would rely on that employment data in deciding whether to attend the school.

    For their fraudulent concealment claim, the plaintiffs failed to cite any authority supporting the existence of a special or confidential relationship between a prospective or current student and an educational institution that would induce any fiduciary duty, the judge said.

    Judge Cohen also rejected their argument that they should have been able to rely on DePaul’s employment information without doing any independent research on their own because DePaul is a law school and therefore should be expected to present reliable information. He said they cited no authority allowing them to “close their eyes” to publicly available information.

    Additionally, the judge noted that the job statistics included a salary range for the graduates that responded, which went as low as $20,000 a year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What did you expect from Cook County?

      I'm baffled at the idea that consumers have to make an independent investigation of employment statistics for DePaul Law graduates and submit a detailed PhD-level spreadsheet with the complaint. Apparently, that's the new standard.

      No statement predicting odds of employment? Holy flirking schnitt, as someone who got propaganda from DePaul, that's an egregiously-stupid opinion. I mean rock-bottom dumb, and to have it being made by a judge on a motion to fucking dismiss is an indictment of how shitty the trial courts of this country are, how far off base they can be if they just choose not to let someone win. Because let's face it, that's exactly what's gone on here.

      Delete
    2. Yet another legal opinion and another suit tossed!

      So tell us again, where was the "scam"?

      Delete
    3. Where was the scam? Aside from in the judge's reasoning here? I suppose in California, where matters of fact are proceeding to discovery and not being improperly dismissed in pretrial motions. I'd still love to see one of you assholes openly endorse the "reasoning" in any these dismissals.

      But please, keep thinking that this will keep you safe in your position. They can't save you from increasing transparency. Especially as your hoard of victims continues to grow.

      I still love those quotation marks, though. They make your scam seem so cute (it's just a "scam"!).

      Delete
  37. My browser still won't let me reply to comments, only can comment at the end of the thread.

    4:18 AM--I'm old enough not to be surprised at this, but young enough to be disappointed. No fiduciary duty to students, caveat emptor, it's your fault you took this obviously bogus information seriously. Etc etc. Apparently this scam doesn't rise to some impossible legal standard necessary to prevail in court. But what about decency and fair play and the professionalism that the law schools endlessly preach about?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, what about decency and fair play...and puppy dogs and rainbows and apple pie and summer breezes and world peace.

      Delete
    2. 4:46, you are a vile and disgusting human being. Worse even, you're perfectly willing to accept that you are vile and disgusting. Probably because you know no other way to get by.

      Meanwhile others get by and succeed just fine within the bounds of decency and fair play. And they actually earn their wealth, without stealing from naive young people and taxpayers.

      Delete
  38. I graduated in 2011. After over a year of sticking it out in post bar clerkships in gov, I see that several people in my class have moved into paid local gov positions.

    Anyone else notice this 1 year+ after graduation trend?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our regional fed agency office [SEC] has hired six attorneys in the last year, all from BigLaw. They had far and away the best resumes we've seen presumably due to the labor market woes. SEC isn't tied to the GS scale but still doesn't come close to BigLaw salaries. New hires from BigLaw are roughly at $150k base salary. But fed govt does offer some advantages to offset the relative drop in salary. Our office will likely add 3 more attorneys in FY2013, but one is to replace someone who is actually retiring...we never thought he'd leave but he's 70 so it can happen.

      Delete
  39. I am class of 2014, at Tier 3-4, and I recently got a 2013 SA position offer from a major congressional agency in D.C. I realize, however, that this probably was the result of a whole... lot... of... luck... I also literally applied to every single job I could find, which was entirely too stressful given that I am in school full-time.

    Yet, many friends are struggling. I have some friends with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt and no clue what they're going to do upon graduation.

    The whole thing is sort of disgusting...

    I am grateful that a professor pointed me to this blog last year, and if ever I hear of someone considering lawschool I make sure they thoroughly look into all the questionable things going on.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I completely agree. I am a May 2011 graduate from a T-1 and the few people that did land full-time attorney or associate positions that require a J.D. and bar admission have left those positions for non-legal/semi-legal positions. Many of them could not handle the hours. I think law schools should submit statistics one year after graduation that indicate what you suggest, full-time attorney/associate position that requires J.D./bar admission. I think the percentage would be less than 25.

    ReplyDelete
  41. That is where the problem lies, the clients will have the benifit of the doubt as to what the attorney is really capable of. Car Accident Lawyer Macon

    ReplyDelete
  42. With only a few colours to choose from many simply ... Different stands demonstrated myriad applications for 3D design, image capture, post processing and printing. ...
    attorneys of color

    ReplyDelete
  43. Thanks! This post contains very significant ideas and facts that every reader should be followed. Great idea indeed Attorney Macon

    ReplyDelete
  44. Awesome review. I got to your blog from yahoo while i was looking for job search. I will turn over your site to other people and I am sure they will think the same about your article on this site.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.