The ABA Journal reported in Why Associates Leave is Clear, But What Would Lure Them to Stay? that up to 80 percent of BIGLAW associates leave within the first five years of employment.
A reader identified only as “Chicago 2L” responded:
I’ll tell you why these firms are having the problems they are having:
They hire only the privileged top graduates of elite law schools. Many of these people have never worked a day in their lives, and although a starting salary of 160,000 dollars sounds mighty fine to them, the reality of the hard work soon puts them off. They pay off their loans and move on to a lighter workload….
How to remedy this (in my opinion): Instead of hiring solely the top academic performers from Top 14 Law Schools, look a little lower down the tiers and look longer at previous work experience or other outside influencing factors. A student who may have been only top 25% academically but graduated from a four-year part time program while holding down a full-time job and possibly maintaining a family will not only fully understand the value of a hard day’s work (and that 160k starting salary) but might also have useful information and abilities gained from previous experiences in the work force.
An interesting take. My law school experience, post law school educational experience, and law teaching experience supports this theory.
By Email
By RSS Feed
April 22, 2008 at 5:46 am
I disagree. The reason so many leave is two fold: one, the work they get is for the most part mind-numbingly boring and tedious, and two, the system is designed to turn over associates and bring in a new, lower-paid crop of recruits. If all, or even most associates stayed, partner ranks would eventually swell and partner income would go down. The big firms need a steady crop of new, lower-paid, worker bees to generate the dollars for the high-earning partners. The students who do well and graduate from elite schools know how to work; they’ve aleady worked hard to get where they are.
April 22, 2008 at 7:11 am
Good points. I think it is sad if some firms give their associates mind-numbingly tedious work… I guess that I never had that experience at my current, nor prior, firm. Naturally, my current firm is so small that if the partners tried to hoard the “good work,” things would grind to a halt.
If the system is designed to churn… that’s something to ponder. But, if that’s the case, then why are firms concerned about turnover? The ABA Journal article said that it can cost $350,000 to retrain someone, and that firms’ retention committees are working on this as a “problem.” If you are right, then it isn’t a problem at all… but a good thing!
As far as the “elite schools” theory goes, my experience doesn’t support it. I just haven’t seen any correlation at all between alma mater and ability. Some of the worst lawyers I have ever met went to Yale, and some of the best I ever met went to “lower ranked” schools. (And vice versa, of course).
I guess the part that I really liked about Chicago 2L was that she seems to advocate looking more at the whole candidate.
Now I understand that most of my legal experience is at a small firm — so we HAVE to look at the whole person. Churning, for us, is not a good thing.
April 22, 2008 at 8:35 am
Having practiced law for more than thirty years, I think the chances of a law school graduate being a “good lawyer” is directly related to the school he or she went to. That’s not to say that every lawyer from Harvard or Yale is good, and every layer from Podunk is bad, but the odds favor the former.
Big Law’s concern with turnover is probably more a concern with losing associates early before they have been fully milked, than with a concern that not all associates hang around long enough to be considered for partner. Big firms allow only a small portion of associates to reach the partnership level, and even then there are different types of partnership: equity vs. non-equity, for instance.
Should big firms look at the whole individual? Yes. Nonetheless, students from elite law schools will get the benefit of the doubt. If there is one thing that an elite law school degree does, it opens the door. Once you get in, then you have to prove yourself like anyone else. But that door-opening is a big advantage, and maybe justifies the perhaps higher cost of the elite school. I speak from experience on this point.
JLW
April 22, 2008 at 8:49 am
Having practiced for only six years, I’ll gladly defer to your experience. I recognize that you have five times the experience and wisdom… so, I take what you say VERY seriously and with great respect.
I agree that the elite law degree opens the door… my Georgetown degree has opened plenty of doors for me. I guess that I’ve just always thought that was unfair — even though I benefited from it.
I look back at Dec. 7, 1996 — the day I took the LSAT — and think… if I had a bad day that day, I wouldn’t have been accepted at Georgetown. On the other hand, if I didn’t have to pee for the whole first half of the exam, maybe I’d have gotten in to Yale. One point higher or lower on the LSAT would have changed where I wound up. That tells me that alma mater is an over-rated factor in considering a candidate.
I also consider the fact that I turned down a full ride to the Univ. of Florida to be a foolish move. Sure, there would have been a lot of doors that such a degree wouldn’t open. But, I’d still be the same smart, hard-working guy, wouldn’t I? And, I’d have $1000 more per month to play with.
Maybe maybe once I have even a quarter of the experience you do … I will change my mind… and perhaps my view is colored by my relative newbie-ness. But, if I were in a position to hire someone, the first thing I would do is have my assistant white-out their alma mater and class rank from their resume.
April 22, 2008 at 10:02 am
I don’t think school and rank are irrelevant, but I get your point: there are other relevant factors.
But in the real world, where big firms hire several dozen new associates per year, they are unlikely to spend a lot of time on each individual application. The deciders are usually attorneys who have better, billable things to do than study every candidate’s record. So they fall back on school and rank.
My advice, though unsolicited, to a law student at a non-elite school is to look for alumni of your school and write to one or more of them directly. An alumnus is likely to be proud of his/her own success, and in my experience usually willing to help others from the same school. I think that’s one way to try to get around the elite-school bias (or presumption).
JLW
PS: I get your point about the cost of law school. When I finished school, I had an $8,000 debt (of course, that was a lot of money back then). My older son is about to choose a law school, and the one he’s leaning toward estimates the cost of a year’s tuition, room and board, and expenses at $60,000.
April 22, 2008 at 10:30 am
Good advice, John.
SIXTY grand a year? Oh my god!
Another Welch in the profession? Excellent!
April 23, 2008 at 12:08 pm
The alumni advice does not help! The problem the new graduates have at lower tier schools is the same problem the alumni faced when they graduated. The lucky few that find meaningful employment from a lower tier school are usually not in a position to help the new graduates…except the obligatory: “Legal Aid is always looking” or “have you tried the PD.” While there is nothing wrong with working for the state, there is something wrong with that being the ONLY viable option. Many good graduates and progressive legal thinkers are lost in the quagmire of “the Rankings.” Simply the alumni support is not a workable solution. These graduates are finishing their stint at the PD and have no contacts that could help. Also, in Florida, a moratorium is placed on state hiring. So the only viable option is no longer viable.
I would advise that the proponents of the rankings put your money where your mouth is and hire the lower tier law school graduates. This helps more than: “work hard and show them.” The truth is that a lower tier law school grad is hungrier for the position. Also, as stated above, these students can also get hired and immediately start working. These students are prepared for the real world…because the lower tiers realize this is the advantage. However, the big wigs and good ol boys club at the large firms do not want to pull their head out of their pedigrees.
Firms continue to whine about new associates that want large salaries but are inept at their job….SO HIRE SOMEONE WHO WILL NOT WHINE ABOUT AN $80k SALARY AND WILL DO GOOD WORK (sorry for the caps). The lower tier grad will be grateful for the position and opportunity.
With that I would personally challenge any new graduate from any upper tier school to a moot-off or mock trial. The stakes are pride and employment placement. It will be like a competitive legal “Trading Places.” Any takers?
Jonathon Blevins
Recent 4th Tier Law School Graduate
April 23, 2008 at 6:09 pm
“The truth is that a lower tier law school grad is hungrier for the position. Also, as stated above, these students can also get hired and immediately start working. These students are prepared for the real world…because the lower tiers realize this is the advantage. However, the big wigs and good ol boys club at the large firms do not want to pull their head out of their pedigrees.”
I guess hunger for a position should supersede raw data and hiring history that points to hiring at the “name” schools. I agree that there’s not a huge difference between students at Cornell vs. Kansas, but there is a higher success rate hiring out of the name schools. These are businesses, not alumni charities. If they weren’t getting the results they wanted from the big name schools, they’d look elsewhere.
Your argument for desperation being a driver is not really a plus anymore for the lower ranked schools, considering the amount of debt most kids are taking out at the “name” schools. Those kids all need the jobs too, and are desparate to pay off their loans. If they didn’t need the money, why would they take “big law” jobs that everyone agrees are generally miserable meat grinder jobs that burn out 3-5 years of their lives? There’s a fundamental disconnect between your assertion and reality.
I’m sure the moot-off or mock trial is a great measure of skill for the big law job you want, which generally involve little to no trial work. You’ll have no problem finding an employer that will sanction this as a fantastic idea.
April 24, 2008 at 1:04 pm
I agree with your 2L- never mind the junior mandarins. Get some lawyers who come in the door understanding how the world works.
IF I had my way, no one would be admitted to law school before he or she had gone out in the real world for awhile, supported themselves and shouldered some genuine responsibilities. Too many- FAR too many - of the legal profession today don’t realize or don’t care what harm they can do with the power they have. People’s businesses and reputations, their finances and saving, their liberties and rights, can be ruined in an instant by a summons or subpoena from a lawyer playing God. If the lawyer has never done anything but sit in classrooms, it’s not real to him. But unlike avatars in a computer game who can be resurrected with the push of a button, real people can get hurt for good.
The really scary thing about Elliot Spitzer is that there are plenty more where he came from.
April 24, 2008 at 1:25 pm
You are right, asdf, perhaps a mock trial or moot-off is not the best measure of trial ability. However, at least it takes SOME ability. This takes more legal ability then sitting in a class room or in an apartment preparing for an exam. If the extent of a top tier law student’s ability is being able to conjure up knowledge for a 3hr exam, then that is no ability at all.
I will changed my offer…after passing the Bar Exam, I challenge any recent top tier law school graduate to a public interest suit. The interest can be chosen by the challenged but I choose venue.
The problem is not that a lower tier law school graduate cannot get a job at a large firm (I, for one, do not want to be a member of a large firm). The problem is that unless you want to hang your own shingle, even small firm jobs are hard to get. Why? The small firms are ex-large firm members and higher on the same basis as the large firm counterparts. It is a sick circle.
What does an employer really want? I believe, though naive, that an employer wants an associate that can apply legal principles and provide client advice in real time. The employer wants an associate that can write a brief or deposition or contract without much oversight or editing. So, if the top tier student’s claim to fame is the pedigree alone, this student will be inept for at least a year. The new associate will need extensive training and babysitting. On the other hand, a student from lower tier school that have moot court, trial team, clinical, extern/internship experience is prepared to work at the onset. Yet, the pedigree still hold weight….why?
Well let’s go back to the year before the law school rankings and before the Bar Association cartel reigned. Law students were trained to be lawyers. Apprenticeships were the norm, not the exception. So once a student was done with the mentor, he/she was able to practice law, effectively. Enter the RANKINGS (blame scary music in the background).
When the rankings began, I assume the conversation went something like:
Q: “Harvard Grad, what is the best law school in the land?”
A: “Why, Harvard of course! We have the most old pictures on the wall, so we must be the best!”
Rankings czar looks around the room….”Any dissent?”
Yale Grad: “We are the best!”
Other Ivy Leagues (in unison): “We are the best”
Ranking Czar: “Ok. The only solution is that we will rotate the Ivy League schools through the top 5. Agreed?
A: “YES!”
After that the other east coast schools came together in protest. So the ranking czar agreed with them that they could round out the top 25…and so forth and so on.
The sad part is that no one is willing to challenge the hierarchy. In fact, the Ivy Legaue schools do not compete openly with other schools. The great equalizer, an anonymous Moot Court or Trial Team competition, do not include these schools. Why? The schools have everything to lose by losing. In an anonymous competition, the top tier schools cannot slap the diploma on the table and walk out on top…it would actually have to compete. So the powers at be did the best thing they could do to protect their interest…raise a high wall of seperation and never allow the possibility of a loss.
So, while a low tier graduate can go to a large national competition and actually beat a top tier law school at the competition, the top tier student will get the job 9/10 times. Sad. You lose and your consolation prize is a job.
To address. asdf’s question: Why would they take the large firm jobs? The answer is so obvious is smooths the wrinkles in my brain…because they are told they must! The top tier schools thrive in the rankings because the students take those jobs. The loan is not that much of a concern because most large firms provide debt forgiveness. The big firm job provides the spring board for the top tier students to do something else in two year when they are weeded out or quit. The large firm job is the foundation for the school to maintain “prestige” in the rankings. Who does the ranking czar ask about prestige? BIG FIRMS!
This is not desperation, this is reality. Top name does not equal top quality. If the ABA qualifies a school and the state bar qualifies the graduates, why is that lawyer second rate? Cornell is qualified by the same ABA that qualifies Regents. The State Bar of any state is the same bar that qualifies all practicing attorneys in that jurisdictions. So my JD means JD everywhere Stanford’s JD means JD.
No worries. Minds do not need to be changed on the pages on the LS (though maybe it should) Minds only change through action. So, while it may seem an idle threat now, I plan to research the attorney(s) at the other table to see where they are from. Also, when I am in a power to hire, it will be a case by case basis….not “what school did you go to.”
April 24, 2008 at 3:27 pm
I couldn’t agree with Mr. Blevins more if the very same words had com out of my mouth. This has, and will continue to be, a subject I feel very passionate about since beginning law school 2 years ago. As a current 2L (soon to be 3L) at a 4th tier law school (Barry University in Orlando, FL) I have experienced first-hand the mentality that “higher ranked schools produce better attorneys.” Now, this may be the case in some instances, however, the rankings do not include one extremely important, intangible trait… the ability and willingness to bust your ass.
This mentality is not solely limited to the ranking of schools either. I personally believe, that grades play a much too important role in a potential employer’s/recruiter’s/career service office administrator’s mind. Again, this isn’t to say that all students below the mystical “top 15-20%” mark are or will be hard working interns and attorneys. However, when will the above mentioned people realize that grades are not necessarily the sole determining factor on whether a student actually learned the material taught in a specific course, nor are grades a good indicator of one’s ability to work hard, manage time, organize, be personable and use common sense?
These factors (from discussions with a few local attorneys for whom I hold much respect for) seem to be much more important to early and sustained success in the legal field, as well as, the practice of law in general. By limiting interviews to only those students in the top 10, 15 or 20% of their class (which I have seen numerous times as the sole factor to getting one’s foot in the door for an interview), employers limit their success in finding quality candidates to fill vacant internship and employment positions. While I have considered the fact that employers limit interviews, using the above criteria, in order to save time and are able to weed out potential candidates through the interview itself, I must pose the question: would it not make more sense to open interview spots to all candidates who want to apply; but, have potential interviewees submit something more telling of their personality and work ethic, such as a short personal essay and legal writing sample, along with their resume and grades? I managed different businesses for 5 years, while in undergrad, before coming to law school (I’m still young, I started managing my first business when I was 19). When a potential applicant requested info about employment, I would explain that in addition to a resume and application, I required them to write an essay of my choosing before an interview would be set up. I gave them a day to write it and I gave myself a day to read it before scheduling that interview. I managed a nightclub… You should have seen the looks I got from people when I told them the pre-interview criteria!
I understand that we’re seemingly talking about two different professions here, but not that is only at the surface of the picture. By digging deeper you’ll realize that no 2 jobs are really that different at their core. Success in any employment, from attorney to bartender to musician, requires hard work, creativity, the ability to adapt to varied situations, common sense and a cool head when shit hits the fan. Resumes and applications only speak of a person’s ability to regurgitate information and apply it in a certain context (much like most law school exams). They speak nothing of a person’s ability to think outside of the box and quickly adapt to a unique situation. Not all people can do well on tests, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be given an opportunity to sell themselves to an employer. Hopefully, law firms of all sizes will begin to realize that a worthwhile job candidate cannot be measured by a ranking (whether that pertains to the school they went to or the grades they achieved in school); a worthwhile candidate be measured by their willingness and ability to work hard, think creatively, display common sense and people skills. That’s why it shouldn’t matter what school a person went to, only how they sell themselves to an employer if the opportunity to do so, because many of us “non-prestigious” students would pleasantly surprise employers, if only given the chance prove our worth.
- Zac/AGhostInTheSnow
April 25, 2008 at 1:02 am
“On the other hand, a student from lower tier school that have moot court, trial team, clinical, extern/internship experience is prepared to work at the onset. Yet, the pedigree still hold weight….why?”
Again, this is a false assumption that the top tier schools don’t do this. The difference in education at the top tier schools vs. the lower level schools is not what you make it out to be.
“The problem is not that a lower tier law school graduate cannot get a job at a large firm (I, for one, do not want to be a member of a large firm). The problem is that unless you want to hang your own shingle, even small firm jobs are hard to get. Why? The small firms are ex-large firm members and higher on the same basis as the large firm counterparts. It is a sick circle.”
The small firm guys don’t want to hire young graduates and have to train them. They want to hire from the big firms and have them do the vetting for them. It’s not like the top tier grads can easily get these small firm jobs coming out.
“Also, when I am in a power to hire, it will be a case by case basis….not “what school did you go to.””
I don’t think it is a consideration for most people, unless they have a knowledge base with specific school(s) that those people do solid work. Again, these are businesses, they’re in the business of making money. You still haven’t refuted my point: if the tier 4 grads were of the same quality (on average), why aren’t they being hired at the same rate? There would be a market advantage for a big firm to hire those grads instead of the top tier grads, b/c they could pay a bit less and get the same quality of work. Your point flies in the face of logic. Unless law firms are irrational actors, this would be corrected by the market. It hasn’t been. I wonder why?
“the ability and willingness to bust your ass.”
The pervasive view from both of you is that the top tier grads aren’t working hard, and aren’t busting their butts. I want to know why you assume the top tier grads are sitting around lazily while you guys are working way harder than them. I can tell you for a fact, the kids at most of the top law schools had to work their asses off to get there and work their asses off at law school.
“I must pose the question: would it not make more sense to open interview spots to all candidates who want to apply; but, have potential interviewees submit something more telling of their personality and work ethic, such as a short personal essay and legal writing sample, along with their resume and grades?”
To read hundreds of personal statements and writing samples, you’d have to increase the time spent on each application through the roof, instead of using an initial screening process that saves a ton of work. If there wasn’t an oversupply of lawyers in the market, your point would have merit, but economically, it doesn’t make sense for firms to operate like this.
“Hopefully, law firms of all sizes will begin to realize that a worthwhile job candidate cannot be measured by a ranking (whether that pertains to the school they went to or the grades they achieved in school); a worthwhile candidate be measured by their willingness and ability to work hard, think creatively, display common sense and people skills. That’s why it shouldn’t matter what school a person went to, only how they sell themselves to an employer if the opportunity to do so, because many of us “non-prestigious” students would pleasantly surprise employers, if only given the chance prove our worth.”
If this is true (and I agree it is), these people will rise to the top at the end anyway.
April 25, 2008 at 10:45 am
Economy?! That is the reason for using the rankings and prestige to hire new associates? COST?! Are these arguments coming from a top tier law school form book?
If you save a few hundred dollars at the beginning by weeding out applicants based on pedigree, the firm will end up losing thousands of dollars in the end. Why? Attorneys fees and losses. Big Firm A saved money by only interviewing at prestigious law school B. Prestigious Law School Graduate C goes to work for Big Firm A. Law School Graduate C is assigned to a case against Low Tier Law School Graduate D, who CHOSE the case. C loses. D requests attorney’s fees. Firm A must now pay the loss of the claim + attorney fees. So for a few hundred dollars saved A ended up losing more on the back end.
Bottom line: I care enough about my profession and my clients to WANT to take the time and spend the money to hire the right person…not the most convenient person…not the person who is presumed to be good based on pedigree. It is our duty to preserve the integrity of law by taking the time and spending the money to ensure quality. If you do not want to take this time or spend this money, then I hope to steal ALL of your clients one day. I would rather get it right at the beginning then cut the check in the end.
I know all of these arguments are ends oriented. Both sides make assumptions about the end result. All things being equal, I understand what role the rankings and prestige play. If all candidate A did was graduate from Low Tier Law School and all candidate B did was graduate from High Tier Law School….B should get the job. The inequity occurs when A’s resume is long and substantive, while B’s only has pedigree and B gets the job. This is reality…it happens every day. Sad.
At least we can agree on one thing…the best to rise to the top. It is just sad that some of the best will never be noticed because the market beat them up and firms told them to get lost based on pedigree. The US News Rankings should not be the gatekeeper of a profession.
Jonathon Blevins
Still waiting for a challenger
April 25, 2008 at 5:02 pm
“If you save a few hundred dollars at the beginning by weeding out applicants based on pedigree, the firm will end up losing thousands of dollars in the end. Why? Attorneys fees and losses. Big Firm A saved money by only interviewing at prestigious law school B. Prestigious Law School Graduate C goes to work for Big Firm A. Law School Graduate C is assigned to a case against Low Tier Law School Graduate D, who CHOSE the case. C loses. D requests attorney’s fees. Firm A must now pay the loss of the claim + attorney fees. So for a few hundred dollars saved A ended up losing more on the back end.”
If this happened enough, the market would adjust, and they’d stop hiring the top tier grads. Again, these firms aren’t in business to lose money. I’m beginning to think you don’t understand basic economics. I noticed that you casually dismissed economics as a “top tier form book” argument. I’d be making the same economic arguments to describe the market for any other job market (waitress, accountant, engineer, bouncer, etc.) That’s how businesses work, and to say that’s not the driving force or a good justification is naive.
“It is our duty to preserve the integrity of law by taking the time and spending the money to ensure quality. If you do not want to take this time or spend this money, then I hope to steal ALL of your clients one day. I would rather get it right at the beginning then cut the check in the end.”
Again, you make the assumption that top tier grads are doing inferior work to other law school grads. Your ability to create claims out of thin air is remarkable.
“The inequity occurs when A’s resume is long and substantive, while B’s only has pedigree and B gets the job. ”
You’re taking a small sample size, and projecting it to the entire system, crying injustice. The amount of kids at the top tier schools with solid resumes is probably remarkably similar to those at the lower schools, and the amount of kids coming straight through college with a crappy resume is probably similar at both schools. Additionally, resumes are a part of the application process (not sure of a law school that doesn’t ask for one), so this would be a factor in getting admitted to law school I’m not going to disagree with the obvious point that it’s mostly a numbers game, but resumes can play a factor, especially for really long or special resumes.
I don’t think the long resume is really as applicable to law firm jobs as you would imagine, unless it’s a specific job in a professional market, or one with client connections that law firms would want, they don’t really benefit from your work experience beyond the standpoint of maturity. Maturity can be measured in the interview more so than the resume anyway.
No one’s going to take your challenge because it would be stupid for them to do that (as you admitted), and the adjusted challenge still wasn’t relevant to a big law job anyway, because even the litigation workers there don’t see courtrooms for years.
The small law jobs you want are generally laterals from other firms, because they can’t afford to waste time training new lawyers (no matter what school that new grad attended) when they can just hire lawyers that already have been trained, because they don’t have the time or the economies of scale to do otherwise.
April 25, 2008 at 5:18 pm
wgwag
April 26, 2008 at 12:34 am
“the ability and willingness to bust your ass.”
The pervasive view from both of you is that the top tier grads aren’t working hard, and aren’t busting their butts. I want to know why you assume the top tier grads are sitting around lazily while you guys are working way harder than them. I can tell you for a fact, the kids at most of the top law schools had to work their asses off to get there and work their asses off at law school.
First, please see the disclaimer mentioned directly beforehand…
AGhostInTheSnow said, “I have experienced first-hand the mentality that “higher ranked schools produce better attorneys.” Now, this may be the case in some instances, however, the rankings do not include one extremely important, intangible trait… the ability and willingness to bust your ass.”
My point was not that top ranked schools don’t produce better attorneys than lower ranked schools in some instances… my point was, that when one of the main factors in potentially hiring a job candidate is “where they went to school” the value of education is lost on the employer. I never pervasively assumed anything. Not once did I say that students at higher ranked schools don’t work hard. I never assumed, in your words, that “the top tier grads are sitting around lazily while you guys are working way harder than them.” Read through my comment again, I make it a point not to “assume” anything, because we have all heard the anecdote in reference to assumptions. I simply stated that the law school rankings (done by 1 periodical, mind you) fail to take into account a very important factor… the ability to work hard. I never even said that there was a way to solve this particular issue, as far as I can see, there isn’t one… which is why law school rankings are IMOO inept at correctly judging the worth/value of one’s alma mater.
Now, you did make an assumption, and I’ll call you on it, asdf said: I can tell you for a fact, the kids at most of the top law schools had to work their asses off to get there and work their asses off at law school.
I don’t know how you would know this for a fact. Have you personally visited most of the top tier law schools, studied their student’s work habits and interviewed those students? If not, then your assumption is invalid and at best, mere guesswork. I simply posed a question, and possible solution to what I see is a growing problem in our field of employment, many attorneys at large law firms leave after only a few years. In fact, I would argue that it would be more economically prudent to “…increase the time spent on each application through the roof, instead of using an initial screening process that saves a ton of work” because that obviously isn’t working! Yes, the attorney market is saturated, but not necessarily with quality attorneys (I can personally say, that I’ve seen at least half of the attorneys I’ve observed in court make blunders that would make a first semester 1L cringe, no matter where he or she went to school and countless others lack common sense, read the FL Bar Journal periodically and you’ll see dozens of attorneys sanctioned for outright stupidity). Initially spending more time in assessing a candidates personality and overall worth pays off in the long run, as a firm doesn’t have to spend money on the initial training and minor mistakes spent on all new attorneys only to lose out on their investment when the attorney quits 2 years down the road.
I’m glad we agreed on one aspect, but I personally think that most of your viewpoints are exactly what’s wrong with the legal profession today.
- Zac (AGhostInTheSnow)