On BigLaw Hours

If you can stomach Elie Mystal's self-absorbed prose, I encourage people to check out this piece on Above the Law about a Skadden associate in Los Angeles who died of an apparent heart attack at the age of 32 after working 100-hour weeks and suffering visible signs of stress "under intense pressure."

80+ hour stressful workweeks are the type of shit people used to protest in the mines and factories, and there's an argument that manual labor is healthier than mentally-taxing, obesity-inducing office work. No one in an industrialized county should work 100 hours a week. Your mind and body are not built to do it, and no pharmaceuticals can truly make your body amenable to the process. Your mind functions better with sleep and relaxation and contrary to popular myth, there is no necessity or personal accomplishment in working that much.

Frankly, in an industrial world of high unemployment, there's rarely good cause work more than 60 hours a week. This doesn't make me a slacker, entitlement-whore or a pussy; it makes me a rational individual not blinded by an inflated ego, undo machismo, or survivorship bias. Most of western Europe realized long ago that society benefits greatly when its people try to work rational hours and take generous vacations. In fact, while fear of lazy socialist boogie-men has controlled American labor discourse, places like Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden are arguably in better economic shape than the U.S. (and it's almost indisputable that a poor person is better off in northern Europe).

Since the 1950s, our blue-collar and hourly work force has seen a decrease in hours worked, while white collar professionals have seen working time per person increase, despite massive improvements in efficiency. It's madness when one stops and ponders it: some of our most educated, accomplished young employees (lawyers, doctors in residency, graduate students, finance types) wind up working the longest hours by far. Meanwhile, their peers work normal schedules in their 20s and early 30s, reproduce younger and more often, and can actually enjoy and fuel the leisure economy.

Karoshi is a real phenomenon. As the BigLaw model continuously weakens and the partner track gauntlet becomes more grueling, I won't be surprised if more cases like this arise, with people trying to one-up each other on how much they love the company through billable-hour dick size. A better future would be if everyone actually behaved like rational human beings with self-respect. Unfortunately, our system seems skewered towards fear-driven megalomaniacs.

The pay of BigLaw is obviously good (note: many prostitutes and pornstars are paid well, too), even if it's greatly reduced working 80+ hours a week (it translates to about $30 an hour, which you can easily make in a number of blue-collar areas with experience), most students have to siphon off $1k+ a month for loan repayments, you often have to live in expensive large urban centers, and you're expected to have a professional wardrobe. But is it really worth it when you'll almost certainly be unemployed before the loan is paid back? When your industry has a long-term trend of slashing costs? When you're expected to be on call 24/7? When you have to sacrifice much of what older people reflect upon as positive?

Granted, not all BigLaw is bad or that stress-inducing. But twenty years ago we made fun of the Japanese for working nonstop. Their economy went into zombieland and yet, today, we have people claiming that it's normal and justifiable that our "best and brightest" regularly work 80+ hour weeks.

They, and anyone who signs up for this boat ride, are fucking crazy.

So as we head into Fourth of July, be thankful that you live in the land of Jefferson and Lincoln, of democracy and plutocratic capitalism, a place where your right to speak and believe whatever loony things you want is protected. Know that our Founding Fathers would likely gawk in horror at much of what goes on, and be thankful that there's no fat, rusty, constipated parter making your Blackberry go wild.

EMSI Updates Report + An Extrmely Rough Picture of How to Balance The Numbers

A few days ago, Economic Modeling Specialists posted a survey showing that there was an oversupply of new graduates in all but 3 places: Wisconsin, Nebraska, and D.C. The study had the obvious flaw of using bar exam passages, where people often waive into D.C. and Wisconsin law graduates do not generally have to take the bar.

EMSI has updated their numbers here.

The two states (plus D.C.) that originally looked to not be oversupplying the market — Wisconsin and Nebraska — are most likely producing too many after all.

There's still the thorny issue that some people take more than one bar exam, or, in the alternative, may not represent a uniform class (e.g., people who put off taking the bar).

This problem, I think, is handled by the "Completers" numbers. Nationally, it looks like there were 1.2 bar exam passers for every student who completed law school. In other words, unless almost half the graduating class of '09 put off the bar exam, we can safely assume there's an oversupply.

More to the point, the intrastate numbers clearly show an oversupply without even considering the number of "Completers." If I'm looking for a job in Minnesota, I don't care who's licensed in MN/WI or MN/ND. I care only about who's licensed in Minnesota, because that's who I'm competing with for jobs, that pool of 888 at a minimum. And with only 378 annual job openings, a pool that large is a problem, even if some of those people can get jobs in Wisconsin.

Note, also, that the numbers aren't recessionary, as the projections go to 2015.

To show how big the gap is, I'd like to show what might be done to solve this discrepancy, to illustrate how drastic the situation is. I'm not going to do the exact math right now, but if you did all of the following:

ALABAMA
Close Jones/Faulkner and the two state-accredited schools.

ARIZONA
Close Phoenix School of Law

ARKANSAS
Reduce Arkansas-Little Rock entering class size to 80 or so.

CALIFORNIA
Close Thomas Jefferson, Whittier, Golden Gate, UC-Irvine, and all 42 non-ABA-accredited schools.

CONNECTICUT
Close Quinnipiac

DELAWARE
Close Widener

DIST. OF COLUMBIA
Close U. of DC, cut enrollment at the remaining DC schools in half.

FLORIDA
Close Florida Coastal, Barry, Florida A&M, and Ave Maria, slash enrollment everywhere else except UF.

GEORGIA
Close JMLS-Atlanta, slash enrollment at Georgia State and Mercer

HAWAII
Cut U. of H enrollment to 80

IDAHO
Stop Concordia now.

ILLINOIS
Close JMLS-Chicago, NIU, SIU, slash enrollment at DePaul, Kent, and Loyola.

INDIANA
Stop Indiana Tech now, close Valparaiso.

KANSAS
Close Washburn.

KENTUCKY
Close Northern Kentucky or slash enrollment at all three by 1/3.

LOUISIANA
Close Loyola-NO, slash enrollment at remaining schools.

MARYLAND
Close Baltimore, slash enrollment at U. Maryland.

MASSACHUSETTS
Close Suffolk, New England, Western New England, Northeastern, and the two state-accredited schools.

MICHIGAN
Close Cooley

MINNESOTA
Close St. Thomas and Hamline, cut enrollment at William Mitchell

MISSISSIPPI
Cut enrollment at two schools by 50%

MISSOURI
Close St. Louis U., slash enrollment at Wash U. and UMKC.

NEBRAKSA
Close Creighton

NEVADA
Cut UNLV enrollment by 1/3.

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Cut UNH enrollment to 80 per class.

NEW JERSEY
Close Rutgers-Camden and Seton Hall.

NEW YORK
Close Pace, Touro, Brooklyn, Hofstra, NYLS, St. John's, and CUNY; slash enrollment everywhere else by up to 1/3.

NORTH CAROLINA
Close Charlotte, Elon, and Campbell.

NORTH DAKOTA
Slash enrollment at UND to 40 or merge with U. South Dakota.

OHIO
Close Capital, Dayton, and Toledo.

OKLAHOMA
Cut Oklahoma City enrollment in half.

OREGON
Cut enrollment at all three law schools by half.

PENNSYLVANIA
Close Villanova and Duqusne, slash enrollment everywhere else.

RHODE ISLAND
Cut Roger Williams enrollment in half.

SOUTH CAROLINA
Close Charleston School of Law.

SOUTH DAKOTA
Cut U.S.D. enrollment to 40 per class or merge with U. North Dakota.

TENNESSEE
Close three non-ABA schools, slash enrollment at remaining three schools.

TEXAS
Close South Texas and Texas Wesleyan, slash enrollment at St. Mary's by half.

VIRGINIA
Close Liberty, Regent, and Appalachian.

WASHINGTON
Close Seattle U.

WEST VIRGINIA
Cut enrollment at WVU by 1/3.

WISCONSIN
Cut enrollment at Marquette and UW by 1/3 each.

WYOMING
Cut enrollment at U. Wyoming to 40 per class.

...you might be able to balance things out.

I am not advocating that we do this, nor am I under any delusion that anyone has the power to do this. But, under rough estimation, this is about what would have to happen for the numbers to balance in the next five years, assuming the projections are accurate. Maybe later I will do the precise math on this.

In theory, the market should have sorted this out by now, and many of those schools (especially the ones from the old-school industrial states, like New York or Ohio) would have closed. Instead, we had new schools scrambling to open and jump on the pile. Ask yourself how and why that happened. In my opinion, it's strong evidence that the schools as an industry were profiting from hiding product information from J.D. applicants.

Maybe closing 104 institutions and slashing enrollment almost everywhere else would be drastic, but what other solution is left? There's a massive market failure that goes well beyond the temporary effects of a recession, partly because of the law schools' incentive to keep customers to their profitable business in a dwindling field, and partly because the mostly-unsophisticated customers have the easiest access to credit in world economic history.

But that's how bad it's gotten, not unlike the proliferation of medical schools in the pre-Flexner days, although you'll never get administrators to see the similarities.

California Students Answer if Law School is Worth the Cost

CalBar.org (well, its e-journal for Cal. law students) asked the question whether law school was worth it to six California law students.

Two gave respectable answers. Four failed. Yes, I get that these are opinions, but they failed.

Three of them give some variation of "law is what I want to do, therefore it's worth the cost:

• Brandon Lewis (Chapman): "Law school is worth the cost to me because I want to do the type of work that lawyers do."
• Elisa Gibellini (U.S.F.): "[L]aw school is necessary to my goal and thus worth the cost."
• Onell Soto (San Diego [listed as "San Diego University School of Law"]): "[L]aw school is worth the cost because it's the path to doing what I've set out to do."

The fourth gives an even more ludicrous answer:

• Kuscha Hatami Fard (Cal-Western): "Law school has given me the opportunity to become part of an elite group who are some of the highest educated people in the country."

False and poorly-written is no way to go through life or present one's "high educated" status.

Going back to the reasoning of the first three, we as a society need to come to grips with the idea that career dreams can be overpriced such that the cost makes them unworthy of pursuit. People have no problem abandoning other dreams when the cost becomes too high. Why is it so difficult to understand that being a litigator or doing "lawyer work" may cost too much? Is it because if we acknowledge that some professions are just out of reach to non-wealthy people that the Emperor's merito-democratic clothes come flying off?

Look, folks, I really want to eat lobster every week and spend my afternoons banging a trophy wife. I really want that. But right now? It's not worth the cost. "But wait!" you say. "Those are 'things,' not investments. A law license gives you earning power!" Okay - sure - I really want to own a restaurant in the middle of New Mexico called China Ye-Haw! that'd be just like Casa Bonita only with a Chinese-meets-Western USA theme. There'd be a railroad running through it and everything. It's a dream, but there's no way in hell I should actually embark on it due to the high cost and low return on investment. Happy now?

Debt. I really don't think my generation understands debt, and why should they? Their parents obviously know jack shit about it, having lived their entire lives beyond their means to keep up with the imaginary Joneses in the advertisements, all while their public representatives piled liability on top of liability. And of course, most people, places, and things can get out of their ridiculous debts with bankruptcy, so people have been trained that erring on spending is acceptable, socially-beneficial even, as we just gotsta keep the economy going skyward, so you can screw up buying clothes or furniture or cars or houses or vacations or hookers or utilities and can generally scratch it out if you have to. In the select group of people where errors are discouraged is student lending. Try to figure that one out.

Which brings me, in a rambling fashion, to the Los Angeles Dodgers' bankruptcy filing. Here, Frank McCourt is using the United States Bankruptcy Court as a tool to maintain his stranglehold on a beleaguered, but still profitable, franchise, play white-collar chess with MLB, screw up his divorce proceedings, and correct a cash flow problem caused in part by his own abuse of the company (i.e., withdrawing money from the business for his lavish lifestyle).

While there's little risk that salaries and contracts won't be paid, I find it egregious that the moneyed elite can use a bankruptcy court to fix their multimillion dollar mistakes with asset-rich, profitable companies to better subsidize their swanky lifestyles while a college graduate who, for whatever reason (illness? honest miscalculation?), cannot pay back an education loan is deemed unclean and unfit for court.

Worse - you address these injustices to people and they say things like "well, it's too big to change" or they pretend that student loan debt is something it isn't, or that the risk of nonpayment is higher than with other unsecured claims. Much like the standard responses to the law school bubble, they're ground in complete fiction or a wholly pessimistic attitude towards reform and a callous disregard for social injustice.

Finally, looking over these students answers, I'm mildly bothered that many of the same people who think law school is a good investment now are the ones who may, in the future, be weighing possible settlement values against the cost of trial or further proceedings. Think about it. Are these the same type of people who will overvalue a trial victory in court? Ones who force their vision of the future, come hell, high water, or six-figure debt?

Associates v. Staff Attorneys, and Another Example of Thomas Cooley Reasoning

Crain's Detroit has an interesting article about the trend in large firms to move associate positions to lower-paid staff attorneys (and, occasionally, to move work from staff attorneys to partner-track employees). It gives a nice overview of the differences between the two, why firms prefer one or the other, why they switch, etc. It's fair, even-handed, and informative, probably because it was written from the business side and not by some hack academic.

But at the end of the article sits this odd remark from Thomas Cooley dean John Nussbaumer:

[R]ecent graduates are under increasing pressure to consider alternatives to partner tracks if they want to enter private practice. But he is convinced that trend is cyclical and the tide will turn again soon.

Keeping in mind that about 10,000 Americans will turn 65 every day for the next 19 years, he said: "That group includes the majority of current equity partners. The median age of attorneys today is 52 years old," he said.

"So while the short term is rough, we think the long-term picture is those people retire in increasing numbers. And they won't be retiring from second-tier or career associate positions."

Yeesh.

Is there a written rule that partners are replaced on a one-to-one basis? No. There's no preordained ratio of partners-to-proletarians in the legal community. Sure, when partners leave the profession, their clients have to go somewhere, and so there's a pool of available business that younger attorneys may take.

But recent large-firm behavior suggests the big boys aren't too worried about a leadership/partner-class drain, and are perfectly fine consolidating the ranks of the elite. And this leaves out the rise of non-equity partnership as an alternative way for firms to build loyalty and keep clients while consolidating the real wealth.

As an aside, to even get in those positions, one almost always has to have an associate position with the firm or build up a practice worth taking. In other words, why is a Thomas Cooley dean even thinking about these things?

Furthermore, have they even sat down to do the math on this?

Let's assume that 10,000 people will, in fact, hit 65 every day for the next 19 years. Let's further assume that the lawyers per capita rate is currently 1 per 285 and (for giggles) let's assume that the per capita number is a constant across all ages. Let's also assume (for even greater giggles) that attorneys, along with the rest of the population, will retire or die at an average age of 65.

10,000 people x 365 x 19 = roughly 69 million retiring adults. Of those 69 million, roughly 240,000 would be retiring licensed attorneys.

Currently, there are about 45,000 people graduating law school every year, with approximately 28,000 full-time jobs that require a J.D. available. In all likelihood, these available jobs fully account for work that trickles down as a result of a partner retiring, but for the sake of argument, let's say it doesn't. Let's pretend that the current number of job openings reflects only economic growth and non-partner departures and that the 65-year-olds Mr. Nussbaumer speaks of are a completely separate phenomenon.

The overage is currently about 17,000 a year. The vacancies created by retiring baby boomer partners would be 240,000/19 = roughly 12,000 a year. There'd still be an overage of 5k (>10%) per year, i.e., there'd still be an oversupply, and all its attendant problems, and there'd still be no rational reason for Thomas Cooley to exist.

And that - 95,000 extra attorneys with no place in the economy - is the best case scenario, barring drastically reduced enrollment. I imagine the attorneys-per-capita ratio may be lower for the 45-65 crowd than it is for the 25-45 crowd (I'm not sure where he's getting his 52 = median data; maybe practicing and practice-eligible?). And the number of boomer partners - few of whom will likely retire at 65 - is lower still. And all this, again, ignores the idea that the current labor market already factors in aging and departing attorneys quite well. Successful large firms aren't stupid, and they aren't just going to sit by and watch a generation retire without protecting the firm and the existing partnership, nor are they going to call up a Cooley grad and give him a share because they need a warm body in an old partner's office.

Nussbaumer does, however, exhibit a common argument by the interested educators: that it's all cyclical; that when the boomers retire, someone has to be in their place; that current graduates should all be optimistic for eventually getting their pickings off the money tree, etc.

Bull. We're already producing enough graduates to absorb boomer retirement and then some (like 25% extra). We could shut down all law schools for two whole years and still be in fine shape without any question. Likely much more, as there are a lot of non-practicing JD holders who have been shifted into other professions.

Growing Demand for Minority Lawyers?! Say What?

According to the Orlando Sentinel, Florida law schools are fretting drops in minority enrollment.

Scholars say more minorities need to study law at a time when many are pursuing careers in health sciences and business.

There's a growing demand for minority attorneys, as many members of the public seek lawyers in criminal and civil cases who look like them and can relate to them through cultural backgrounds and life experiences.

In addition, law firms want to diversify so they can better compete globally and build trial teams that can make effective cases before racially diverse juries.

I have little doubt that there's a real demand for attorneys with multicultural language skills. But the barrier there is purely communicative, and may actually inhibit access. It's not merely ethnic or racial.

It's really, really stupid to claim that there's a "growing demand" for a racial subset of a profession when the profession as a whole is producing a 40% excess every year without proof of abnormal consumer behavior.

I'll concede that people would prefer to be represented by people who look like him, and I'll also concede that given candidates with equal qualifications, firms in many areas would take a minority for diversity reasons.

But there's scant proof that either (1) minorities bypass legal services that they would purchase if they had a minority to fill their need or (2) minorities pay more for services by someone who looks like them. In other words, my casual observation is that the value of minority representation is greatly overvalued by the media and the academic elites who have no real conception of what actually happens at ground level. It's an ivory tower fantasy; in fact, in some cases, I would suppose minorities would want a white representative in court if they truly feel the court is prejudiced. And nevermind that a 40k-a-year "shit"law lawyer has more in common with most blue-collar minorities than an east coast elitist biglaw washout, but I digress...

The point is that there really isn't a "growing demand" unless a minority could theoretically open up shop and immediately siphon off business merely by being a minority who looks like his clientèle. Given the current legal climate, I just can't see that happening. No unsourced article premised on interviewing unnamed law school administrators about the unspoken wishes of a population can change that.

Sure, in an ideal world, the bar would reflect the population and people could choose among experienced lawyers of all racial and socioeconomic compositions to find the perfect person for them. In reality, we live in a world where experienced, competent attorneys happen to be disproportionately white and male. New entrants, minority or not, have an uphill battle going against that establishment, and consumers know the difference, or find out rather quickly. Minorities may find it easier to nab associate positions at bigger firms, but it's not like corporate clients are going to change firms because someone found a black guy to hire, which means there isn't any more job security for minorities than the white males. Both have to pull their weight. And let's not forget that minorities are coveted by most corporations if they have the right business credentials.

To me, telling minorities to give up business and healthcare to study law is nothing short of irresponsible. Healthcare has signs that it's a durable career of the future. Law will still be around, but it's the weakest and least versatile of the three areas. Any non-white/Asian minority who can score higher than a 160 and get into a top 50 school, I would encourage to go to law school if they wanted to be a lawyer and could find a reasonable tuition price. But no way, no how, should "weaker" parts of the applicant pool be heading to law school on the supposition that there's an untapped market out there that wants a minority face to represent them. For a kid who gets a 150 LSAT, minority or not, law is a bad idea. There's no two ways around it, and fantastical dreams of ivory tower six-figure dorks can't change that.

My opinion on this would change if the article actually bothered to have statistics that minorities were in demand in the labor market. Instead, it does nothing but spout admissions figures at Florida law schools, as if that really matters. Hopefully, no one will read the "growing demand" line and actually take it to mean "growing demand" in the economic sense.

Friday Quotes on Higher Education

From Bill Gross, Chairman of PIMCO:

“A mind is a precious thing to waste, so why are millions of America’s students wasting theirs by going to college? All of us who have been there know an undergraduate education is primarily a four-year vacation interrupted by periodic bouts of cramming or Google plagiarizing, but at least it used to serve a purpose. It weeded out underachievers and proved at a minimum that you could pass an SAT test.”

From Gil Weinrich at AdvisorOne:

The medical profession may be no better than law from a financial perspective, according to Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff. Crunching the data for Forbes, Kotlikoff found that a doctor comes out only slightly ahead of a plumber in terms of lifetime earnings once you factor in the physician’s many years learning instead of earning; tuition; loan interest; and taxes paid. For all his effort, the doctor comes out with just a $500 a year advantage over the plumber.

But...but...but... my guidance counselor had a chart that said I'd make way way more going to college! How could it be wrong?!?! It was laminated and colorful!

As far as I'm concerned, people who still claim blindly that one should go to college - even graduate school - to make more money in the future are little better than strict creationists, "no plane" conspiracy theorists, numerologists, UFO watchers, objectivists, trickle-down economists, the jackasses who try to "fix" homosexuals, the anti-vaccination crowd, etc.

What worked in 1980 clearly doesn't work today. Wake up, people.

Response to San Diego Student Who Wrote In

Almost two months ago, I wrote a post critiquing the views of future University of San Diego student Marisa Mittelman as displayed in an article she wrote here.

Marisa apparently made a comment on my blog entry that was unfortunately eaten up by Blogger's aggressive spam filter, meaning I didn't see it until today. Here is the response in full (note: because blogger removed any paragraph breaks, I added some for clarity):

Firstly, I would like to congratulate you for being the first person ever to create a blog in which the sole aim is to spread negativity and pessimism! There aren't any other blogs like yours-- and most certainly not any with better layout, better writing, and better content.

That being said, I would like to clarify a few points:

1) You do not know me. Please do not presume that you know my financial situation, my geographical preferences, or what type of person I am.

2) I will proceed to provide you with some actual information, as opposed to pointless assumptions, about myself:

A) I intend to settle in San Diego. This has been my plan for some time. San Diego is an incredible place to live, and I cannot wait to move there. Since 25% of lawyers currently practicing in San Diego went to USD School of Law, more than any other school (Loyola comprises 1.8% and Pepperdine 1.1%), I stand by my statement that, for someone who intends to live in San Diego, USD is an amazing school (Source : californiabar.globl.org).

B) I am not taking out any more loans than I can handle. USD has provided me with a significant scholarship, and my family has been incredibly generous. Going to USD is in NO way, shape, or form a "catastrophic financial decision" for me, personally. I am not saying that is the case for every USD law student, but your promises of buyers remorse and my 20's being lost are unfounded.

C) I would have to argue that family law is a fantastic area for an eternal optimist. I am confident that IF that is the focus I choose (which, if you read the article, I note that it may not eventually be), that my bright outlook and sunny perspective will be great tools in helping couples facing difficult familial challenges, and children going through one of the hardest situations they may face.

So, while I deeply appreciate your condescending paternal advice, in this case I would have to question your failure to consider any alternatives to your decidedly depressing viewpoint. All the Best, Marisa L. Mittelman

I had a point-by-point response written out, but I think the situation calls for generality.

I don't write this blog for my health, or to show off my pessimism, or even to give advice. I write this blog because at one point in time I was in Marisa's place. I soon found that the system - not just law schools, but the whole legal ball of wax - is not what was presented to me (or what I perceived it to be), that hard working students are getting squeezed out of the market, that salaries are far lower than what's advertised, that being an attorney is not really prestigious, etc. I started this blog because I thought it could be part of a positive change that I feel needs to take place.

It's quite possible Marisa will have great success, both in law school and as attorney. Although she misread parts of the original entry, she seems to have the right attitude (ignoring sarcasm): she researched schools thoroughly, zealously defends her reasoning, sounds like she understands finances and the risks, etc. She's going in with her head up, and I won't be surprised if she does well at all.

But in the end, law school is an odds game in so many ways (some you don't even realize when you sign up), and the odds are far bleaker than any 0L ever calculates. Hard work is by no means a guarantee of anything, nor are good grades unless one is at a top school.

I would love for Marisa to review these posts in two to three years. Hopefully she'll look this up and beam with pride that she's got a sitting offer from the perfect San Diego firm/office, on the road to a satisfying legal career, carrying an investment in her education that reaps dividend after dividend.

Save for the San Diego part, I'd still like that for myself.

But the odds seem against it. And in any event, she'll certainly have classmates, those whose hard work she witnessed first-hand, wind up struggling, and maybe then she'll understand these blogs then, and that maybe all those unemployed students worked hard, after all, and that we don't exist just to be depressing.