To Everything there is a Season

Obviously it has been a while since I have posted on this blog. Why is that? I suppose it is because I have accomplished much of what I wanted to with Law Career Blog as a solo blog. I felt I had important things to say on teaching and classroom etiquette; on law career decisions; on law firm practice; on mentoring, and more. And I have said many of them, so there you have it.

I am very pleased, though, that my posts continue to draw strong traffic month after month, year after year. What I have said here remains relevant, I think--but that does not mean I need to always rehash the same ground, all in the name of having new posts just for the sake of it.

So for now, my existing posts stand for what they are, and I am proud of them. Call me the Antiblogger, I suppose: I am blogging by not blogging.

In any event, the following is a list of posts that have generated the most interest from readers, some posts on subjects I think are particularly important, and some that are just fun. Enjoy!

Posts on Law School in General:

In a series of posts, I argued that if we want law schools to truly provide the academic and practical education that students (and employers) expect and demand, we should consider adding a fourth year to the law school curriculum. Not surprisingly, my proposal was universally condemned. Check out the comments.

See Is the Third Year of Law School a Waste of Time and Money? and Is Law School Itself a Waste of Time?

I think that too often, law students don't step back and think about law school and their future careers in a broader perspective. That's understandable given the workload in law school, but it's still unfortunate. My friend and colleague Gene Theroux visited Mississippi College School of Law once to speak to students about his storied career--he opened the first western law firm offices in China and the Soviet Union--and he had wonderful advice for them. Ostensibly the talk was about globalization, but the heart of his message was to follow your heart and practice law the right way and for the right reasons. Sometimes we need to put our cynicism aside and hear things like what he said that day.

See Theroux Part Deux

Posts on LL.M. Degrees:

This trilogy of posts is perhaps the most popular series of posts on this blog--which proves that good things really do come in threes. Lots of discussion in the comments. See The Pros and Cons of LL.M.s, LL.M. Redux and LL.M.s Part 3.

Posts on Law School Exams, Teaching, and Class Strategies

Bainbridge v. Bowman. I wrote a law review article entitled The Comparative and Absolute Advantages of Junior Law Faculty: Implications for Teaching and the Future of American Law Schools--a piece I am quite proud of. In it, I use traditional neoclassical trade theory to analyze the advantages of junior and senior law faculty and make some recommendations regarding law school teaching. Professor Stephen Bainbridge of UCLA saw it, and he absolutely hated it. This posts includes our dialogue.

How to Improve your Law School Exams Grades. This wasn't a terribly controversial post--or so I thought until I received scathing comments two years after I posted it. Some fun back and forth on that one. Maybe I should've retitled the post Bowman v. Someone Very Angry.

Law School Orientation Advice. Pretty self-explanatory. My own favorite piece of advice: Don't spill a plate of food on your law school dean at the welcome reception. I actually did that--but lucky for me, I still graduated.

Computer-Free Week and Computer-Free Week, Part 2. There is a good deal of concern in the legal academy about computer use in the classroom. Is it beneficial? Is it harmful or disruptive? So one time I asked students not to use computers for one week to see what would happen. The results were pretty interesting, and as a teacher I found the feedback via the comments very useful. Perhaps the most interesting result was that student comments revealed just how prevalent the consumer mentality is among students--namely, I paid my tuition, so I can do what I want in class.

The Dilbertic Method. I definitely like this post about parallels between Dilbert's boss and the Socratic method. If you want to see the Dilbert cartoon I am talking about, you have to click the link in the article and then enter in the cartoon's run date on the Dilbert site.

Posts on Law Firms:

Much of the attraction to, and frustration with, big law firms has to do with the money they pay their associates. So I wrote some pieces on that subject--something I have firsthand knowledge about.

See Of Law Firm Culture and Compensation Schemes, The Problem of Law Firm Salary Distributions, and Big Firm Economics 101.

In another post, I wrote about associate pay and stress levels. In light of the recent savage downturn in the employment market, this post is perhaps more relevant than ever. See Why Associates Have More Stress than Partners.

On Interview and Job Strategies and Techniques

Job Interview Do's and Don't's. The name of the post says it all.

What NOT to do as a Summer Associate. You'd be surprised what some people do. Don't be one of them.

Posts on Movies:

Finally, I have had some fun with movies on this blog, and for some reason they were always movies starring George Clooney. First, I blogged about Syriana--see Syriana Misrepresents International Lawyers.

Then I wrote a whole slew of posts on Michael Clayton--a movie that had a lot to say about what it is (and is not) like to be a lawyer. I was interviewed by the Chicago Tribune about the Michael Clayton series of posts. See the following (not too originally entitled) posts:

Clooney v. Clayton, which is my review of the movie

Clooney v. Clayton, Part 2, about hyperbole in legal dramas

Clooney v. Clayton, Part 3, on whether there is such a thing as a law firm "fixer"

Clooney v. Clayton, Part 4, on the perverse incentive/reward structure of law practice

Clooney v. Clayton, Part 5, on how law practice affects your family life

Clooney v. Clayton, Part 6, regarding legal ethics

Clooney v. Clayton--Again, regarding my Chicago Tribune Interview

* * * *

So for now, that is where things stand. I hope you enjoy reading these posts as much as I enjoyed writing them.

Greg

LLMs Part 3

I am getting a lot of hits to my recent LLM posts (here and here) and a lot of comments too, so clearly a number of people want to know more about the advantages and disadvantages of LLMs. So it seems another LLM-focused post is in order. A comment today to my last post provides a good launching point. That comment, redacted as appropriate, reads as follows:

"Thanks for the very informative blog. You mentioned that you obtained your MA degree abroad in international econ and that it was was a natural fit. I am considering an LLM in international trade law because I would like to specialize in that area of the law and get out of my current field of mass torts litigation. I graduated from University of Pennsylvania undergrad and Temple Law School. . . . While it was relatively easy to find jobs, they were only limited to litigation. You mentioned that you thought that international trade law was one of the areas where a specialty LLM could be useful. Would you also agree that an LLM from a foreign school in international trade law would be 'a natural fit' and thus equally apealling to potential employers? Some specific schools I am looking at are Univ. of Amsterdam, Univ. of Leiden (both in the Netherlands) and London School of Economics."

Let's take this point by point, since it raises a number of issues worth addressing.

1. First, the disclaimer about my masters degree: an MA in international econ was a great fit for me--but this primarily was because I was interested in graduate international economics and wanted to teach someday. I can honestly say that any advantage on the private practice job market was marginal at best. It might have helped more in seeking a governmental position (i.e., with the DOJ in antritrust enforcement, since a lot of the MA was focused on EU competition policy, or with the USTR perhaps), but that is conjecture. And I can also say that it was not directly beneficial to my set of legal skills in private practice--although it was enormously beneficial to have studied abroad when I was dealing with foreign clients, which I did regularly in practice. So what I am trying to emphasize here is that an MA in international econ was a natural fit for me not because it made me significantly more attractive to law firms, but rather because it allowed me to pursue an area of personal interest and improve my prospects on the teaching market.

2. I also said in my previous posts that an LLM in international trade law could be a good way to specialize in that area of law, and as previously noted I have seen people use that approach to great effect.

3. The interesting question posed by the above comment is whether a foreign LLM in international trade law would be as attractive to US legal employers as a US LLM in international trade law. I have cogitated on this question on and off all day. While I have not completely made up my mind on the matter, my initial response is no, a foreign LLM in international trade law would not be as attractive to the average prospective US employer. I am actually somewhat reluctant to say this, since I think there would be enormous academic and personal benefit from a foreign LLM, and living abroad is to my way of thinking a good experience per se. But as a strategic decision to improve your standing in the US legal job market? I think it is a second-best strategy.

I reach this conclusion for several reasons.

First, while it is an international trade law LLM, in many cases--most cases, really--the focus will be on regional law. So an LLM in Europe, for example, generally will focus on domestic country and EU law. In some cases there also may be some level of knowledge about these legal systems that is presumed, which US students are less likely to have. In other cases there are LLM programs geared toward foreign students that do not presuppose such knowledge, but they are still typically geared toward non-US trade law.

In contrast, a US LLM in international trade law is far more likely to give you a grounding in international trade law from a US perspective. And if you are trying to land a job in the US market, that is inherently of more value to US employers. You may take comparative and foreign law courses, but it will not be at the expense of understanding US trade law.

Second--and frankly this is a different way of stating point #1--much of international trade law is comprised of national laws. These laws either implement rules of international regimes like the WTO, or they fall outside such regimes. So on average, it might be better to get a US LLM that is more likely to have such a US trade law focus.

Third, let's not discount the name factor. Imagine you are going into an interview with a US lawyer who went to a US law school, and during the interview you say. "I have strong qualifications, including an LLM from the University of Leiden in the Netherlands." Now pretend instead that you say "I have an LLM from Georgetown." Which is likely to have a more positive connotation for the average US lawyer? Georgetown, of course. You're really trying to play the numbers, and the odds are that Georgetown gets more recognition than foreign LLM programs. Sad perhaps, but true.

Fourth, part of the benefit of an LLM is also being able to relocate to the job market of your choice. Imagine that you want to practice international trade law in NYC. Do you go to NYU, or Paris? While at NYU you can interview, and possibly even clerk at a firm. You also can develop relationships with professors who can give you good and meaningful letters of recommendation. Lawyers at firms in NYC will know who these professors are (or at least know the law school), and this means these recommendations will carry more weight. These advantages are not as readily available if you are studying abroad.

****

Can you tell that I am somewhat uncomfortable giving this advice? As a dedicated internationalist and someone who has lived and studied abroad, I think studying abroad is an absolutely fabulous thing to do. So I would really like to say, "Yes, I think an LLM in international trade law from abroad is every bit as useful in the US market as a US LLM." But I don't think I can say that right now, given the current state of the US job market. There will be exceptions, of course. Imagine that the lawyer you are interviewing with is Dutch! You will be in like Flint--but these are exceptions.

So that is my general advice. Now the question is, when can you break this general rule? Here are some thoughts.

First, you might be able to break this rule when the particular firms you are interested in either have a lot of foreign lawyers in the US or do a lot of business in a particular region of the world. In such cases, a foreign LLM might be just as good, or in some cases even better. There are a number of blue-chip firms out there that fit this bill, including my old firm, Baker & McKenzie. Just do your homework carefully beforehand.

Second, you might break this rule if a US law school has an LLM program that includes study abroad. You could kill two birds with one stone with that approach--US training, and fun abroad.

Third, some foreign programs have cache in the US market. Most people know Oxford and Cambridge, for example.

I am sure there are people out there who disagree with me on this subject, and I am ready and quite willing to be convinced I am wrong on this one. But this is how I see matters right now. Any comments/questions/rants in response are welcome!

LLM Redux

In a post on July 5, 2006, I set forth my views on the pros and cons of LLM degrees. My post was aimed primarily at law students and lawyers who were considering LLMs as a way to improve their marketability for practicing law.

For a discussion of LLMs as means of improving your chances of teaching law, there is an excellent online post by Professor Brad Wendel of Cornell Law School. Professor Wendel's post, which is about the law school hiring process generally, has a good discussion of the LLM degree's potential merits (or lack thereof) in the academic career context. It is also an interesting peek inside the legal academy's ivory tower. I too recently went through the law school hiring process, and I find myself in agreement with much of what Wendel says. If anything, the law school hiring process is even more challenging than his post suggests.

The Pros and Cons of LLMs

I've had several people ask me recently to comment on the merits of LLM degrees, and I think that's an excellent idea. Should you consider one? What are the possible reasons for pursuing an LLM, and what are the real advantages of the degree? This post sets forth my thoughts on the matter.

First, for those who may not know, an LLM is a postgraduate law degree--a law master's degree. In the United States it is typically a one-year course of study at a law school. In some programs you focus your studies on a particular area of law, but often you do not have to.

Second, I should note that my comments are geared toward US JD holders or students who are considering LLMs. Many LLM students in the US are foreign students with law degrees from home country institutions. The advantages of LLMs to them are very different from the advantages for US law students. These advantages include gaining exposure to the US legal system (and thus making themselves more marketable in their home countries); establishing US professional references; and being able to sit for the bar and gain admission to practice in some US jurisdictions like New York. But for US lawyers and JD candidates, the calculus is different. The following are some factors I think should be considered in deciding whether an LLM is for you.

Factor #1: An LLM can be a way to "shop yourself up." If you have a JD from a national law school, then hurray for you. That helps make you more marketable. But if you went to a regional school, an LLM is a way to improve your cache on the market. "I have a JD from Regional State University" generally will carry less weight than "I have an LLM from Harvard/UVA/Chicago." Not that regional schools are bad--many offer superb education. But like it or not, school rankings matter. And because LLM students typically are in class with JD candidates, you are proving, in essence, that you can run with the pack at a national law school. That is definitely worth something.

On the other hand, if you went to a regional school and have good job prospects, an LLM may not be worth the time and expense. Most US lawyers, in fact, do not have LLMs.

Factor #2: Less competitive admissions. It may be easier to get admitted to a given law school as an LLM student than as a JD student. Partly that is because there generally are fewer applicants--but I also think it must have something to do with the fact that LLM applicants' GPAs and LSAT scores are irrelevant for the US News and World Report rankings. So while you may not have been accepted to a particular school as a JD student, you might be able to get in and prove your mettle as an LLM candidate.

Factor #3: "Shopping yourself up," continued: national versus regional law schools. The standard wisdom (stated above) is that the more highly ranked the law school is, the better. Generally, that is true. But what if you want to practice in a particular region of the country? In that case, an LLM from a respected regional powerhouse may serve you as well as an LLM from a truly national school--and be far less expensive, too. My alma mater, Northwestern, is a wonderful law school, but it is not cheap. If you want to practice law in the Deep South, an LLM from Alabama, for example--which is a top-tier school according to US News and World Report--might serve you just as well.

Factor #4: LLMs as a way to get established in a new market. This is really a corollary to factor #3, above. If you are from a law school in, say, the Northwest, and you want to move to another area of the country to practice law, an LLM is a way to go about this. You have a year to develop local contacts, obtain local references from professors at the law school, look for a job, and meet fellow law students who will be your practicing peers in that market. And it shows your determination to relocate--since you've already done it. That last factor should not be underestimated, since firms are typically reluctant to hire new associates whom they think will not stick around.

I am not suggesting that pursuing an LLM is the best way to relocate, and it is certainly not the cheapest. But I have seen this approach used successfully.

Factor #5: An LLM can be a segue into a specialty area of law. The traditional wisdom was that an LLM was useful for someone who wanted to practice tax law, since that field is so complex. That remains true, but with the continued hyper-specialization of law practice, there are other fields in which an LLM can be useful as well. International trade law and environmental law come to mind. An LLM gives you a year to focus on courses in such areas of law. In fact, I have known lawyers who, after practicing for a while, used LLMs as a way to retool and recast themselves as specialty lawyers. That can be a bold move to make--especially if you are doing OK already in practice--but if you are dissatisfied with the direction of your career it is a way to break out of the rut.

Factor #6: An LLM can help you transition from practice to teaching. In order to land a tenure-track teaching job at a US law school, you generally need to have another postgraduate degree besides your JD. Take it from someone who just recently went through the process. Some law schools want candidates with JDs and PhDs, but you want at least an LLM or equivalent degree (a master's degree in something else). Non-tenure-track jobs at law schools may be somewhat less competitive, but there too, an LLM can give you a leg up in terms of credentials.

In addition, pursuing an LLM gives you a year out of the work force in which you can write and publish law review articles. Landing a law teaching job virtually requires an established record of scholarly publication, and it is easier to write when you are in an academic environment than when you are practicing law 14 hours a day. Again, take it from me: I have done it both ways.

A word of caution: I cannot over-emphasize how challenging and competitive the law teaching market is. If you are thinking about this as a career move an LLM may be part of your strategy, but it is not the only part, and certainly is no guarantee of success.

* * * *

These are by no means the only factors to consider, and I would be very interested in hearing any thoughts others might have on the matter. Ultimately, I think LLMs can offer enormous potential benefits, but for many the costs will exceed the benefits. The above factors certainly suggest to me that LLMs are most advantageous in fairly narrowly defined circumstances.