Stupid Resume Tricks

In previous posts I have talked about the importance of being honest in job interviews and on your resume. It's pretty obvious advice, but amazingly, people don't always follow it. In today's internet age, such honesty is more important than ever, since duplicity of this sort is easily discovered. (Not to mention that it's the right thing to do.) Relevant previous posts on this blog include one on Job Interview Do's and Don't's and one on a law professor whose resume apparently contained misstatements. And let's not forget such notables as New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, caught recently making resume misstatements.

So don't fudge your resume in any way, shape or form. Don't don't don't. And if you won't take my word for it, read a very good piece that appeared on MSN.com the other day. After all, it's online, and therefore it must be true, right?

What do you do as a 1L when you bump into Cops?

Michael Paris, a student at Dalhousie in Halifax recently made me aware of his blog entry, "What do you do as a 1L when you bump into Cops?" As Paris put it, "I suppose the short answer is 'whatever they tell you.'" An interesting read.

My take on Paris' article is yes, you do whatever the police tell you to. The only thing distinguishing a 1L, 2L or 3L, or even an articling student, for that matter, from the rest of the population is...I hate to say it...pompous pride.

The truth is that most 1L's don't know any more about the law than the average peruser of any newspaper of worth, no matter how much they argue that they do. Yes, they may argue that they know certain facts, certain legal principles, certain ratios of certain cases, perhaps even certain legislation. But, they do not know "the law". I often feel, even as an articling student nearing his bar call that I still don't know the law. Every client that comes in my door has a unique set of problems, and it is very rare to be able to provide a smooth, complete answer. It invariably takes time, research, legal analysis, practical thought, and a complete reporting to fully meet a client's real needs.

Like yesterday, for example, someone asked me at a non-profit meeting I attended..."What is the necessary ratio for parents to children for a field trip in Alberta." You know what I said? "Just a moment, let me scroll through my mental law filing cabinet and find that little tidbit of legislation or by-law, along with any case-law surrounding the matter." Just kidding...I said that in my mind...with a lot of sarcasm. It really tends to bother me when the public assumes that once you have an LLB or JD, or even worse, when you are studying for an LLB or JD, that you readily know every area of the law. Can you imagine expecting a mechanic to give you the gas to air ratio for the motor of some obscure collector sports car from Italy, right there on the spot?

My advice for anyone who faces this irritation is to either humbly shrug their shoulders, or suggest that you would like to give that excellent question some further thought and study, because it interests you and you want to be sure to give them the right and proper answer. Usually that calms down the masses.

As far as the police go, they will always use their power to their personal advantage. Perhaps, as one comment on Paris' blog says, the cops are compensating for certain anatomy - hard to say.

Couple more words of advice: don't tell a cop that you are a law student when being interogated in any way. They will only laugh. And absolutely do not tell them that you are a lawyer when you are not. That can only lead to trouble.

Best just to do as they ask. Then, when they go on their way, you and your legal drinking buddies can make excellent, witty, legally-bent jokes about their penises, their knowledge of the law, or even better, about how you get to drink beer, even when you are "on duty."

Admissions: Law School Fees

When I started law school, I was prepared to pay about $5,000 per year for tuition and fees. I felt very lucky, as this number would be “grandfathered” for the next three years. In other words, I would not see an increase in the tuition that I paid from year to year, except for the usual university wide increases. However, the next incoming class would be charged a “differential fee” of about $2000, and the following class even more, so that tuition for them, including differential fees was $4000 more than I paid during the same year. It does not really seem fair, but the argument is made that this differential fee goes towards improving the faculty, and thus the opportunities and advantages for the law students. One or two law professors were hired during my second year, but other than that, I never did figure out what the differential fees were being used for. I was just happy that I did not have to pay so much!

The truth of the matter is that the cost of attending law school has skyrocketed in the past few years. Incoming students for 2004/2005 looked at anywhere between $3,000 to $16,000 for tuition and fees, with an average across the board of approximately $9,454. Add to that amount the cost of living, gym fees, etc. and you are looking at a very hefty total for a year of law school.

It is not unheard of for a law student to amass a debt of $60,000-80,000 or more. Although salaries for lawyers do go up over time, especially compared to some undergraduate or graduate programs, prospective law students should be aware of the high cost and the potential debt-load that they may have to carry. It is a significant investment, and not one that should be taken lightly.

Fortunately, law schools are trying to increase the number of bursaries available to their students. One explanation for the differential fee was that those who are able to pay carry more of their own costs, allowing the school to assist those who are less able to pay. The fact that provinces are increasing the amounts of loans available to law students, as well as the increased amount of remission available to graduating students feeds the differential frenzy.

Canadian Lawyer Magazine recently published an editorial about the huge rise in law school tuitions, and about how it effects the middle class the very most. I found this very intriguing. As the editor put it, she couldn't afford to survive on her own accord because she would have been too poor, and she wouldn't have qualified for student assistance because she was too rich. So, we are beginning to see a situation where the middle class are being pushed out. As with the ongoing conundrum for the poor and middle class to access justice, we are seeing the same group being thwarted from accessing law school.

U of T plans to increase its tuition to $22,000 in 2006/2007. Where will it end? Also, when will the firms begin to reflect the increases in tuition, and in cost of living? What really has me wondering is why the firms aren't talking to the law schools about this problem. An increase in tuition costs means that their incoming articling students and associates are experiencing much more stress because of huge debt loads. Surely a green associate would work much more effectively if they didn't have this extra burden. They already have to worry about the unreasonable billable hours...

I don't post this commentary to discourage you from applying to law schools. However, it is a reality that many applicants are facing. All I can really say about this subject is...start saving now.

Mississippi 5 Months After Hurricane Katrina

Today, January 29, 2006 marks exactly 5 months since Hurricane Katrina devastated the coastal areas of Mississippi and Louisiana. There will probably be a surge of media coverage at the 6-month point, so I guess I am ahead of the curve.

Landon Howell, who is a cousin of one of my students, Karen Howell, recently took some truly compelling pictures of the Mississippi coast five months after the storm. They show, better than any words can describe, how complete the devastation remains, nearly one half year later. You can link to his photos here. Please check them out.

As compelling as these photos are, however, they still do not convey the full scene. I was in Gulfport, Mississippi last week for a gathering of Mississippi College School of Law alumni. A lot of clean-up has taken place since August, but frankly the coast is still an absolute mess. The devastation between beachfront highway 90 and the coastal railroad track (which is about a block inland) is nearly indescribable, even 5 months after the fact. Nearly everything south of the track is just gone, and all that is left is debris.

Just north of the track, however, there is significantly less damage. And I do mean just north--as in feet. The track lies on a raised grade, and that feature helped protect buildings just to the north from the storm surge. So a house immediately north of the track would have been flooded, but being somewhat sheltered from the direct storm surge it might still be standing (but probably is condemned). But just a few houses north of that, some residents will have moved back in. And all of this is within shouting distance of the coast and its barren, gothic landscape.

There is a lot being done to help the coast, including by lawyers, law students and law schools (including mine) volunteering their time to help those on the coast in need, but a lot more needs to be done. And yet perhaps the most important contribution is being made by people like the alumni I met last week, who are doing their part by staying in their communities instead of leaving for easier lives elsewhere.

Law Firm Salary Wars

Associate salaries at big law firms may be on the rise again, according to reports at Law.com. An article on that website reports that some big West Coast law firms are raising junior associate salaries by around $10,000. This means new law school grads who land these jobs will be making about $135,000 per year. Those poor junior lawyers! Firms that have hiked their associate salaries lately include Wilson Sonsini, O'Melveny & Myers, and Paul, Hastings, Janofksy & Walker. This round of increases was started by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Since these firms have offices throughout the country, you can expect to see increases in other big markets as well.

Whenever big firm salaries go up, two things generally happen. First, associates in the trenches say, "Hooray! Now I make even bigger bucks!" And second, people who do not like big firms say something like, "Those @#%&*# don't deserve that much money. They are leeches on the back of society."

As it turns out, both reactions are wrong.

Why are the gleeful (greedy?) associates wrong? Because any salary increase is not free money. You are going to have to earn it. And for already big salaries, any increase will truly have to be paid for with blood and sweat. The firm is likely to increase your billing rate to offset your added cost--but with a higher billing rate you will have to be an even quicker learner and faster worker, since clients don't just blindly pay higher fees for the same work product. You also likely will have to bill more hours, and work more hours to do so. And when you divide your grand associate salary by the hours worked per year, the pay ain't so grand. (See my previous post about this.) So remember, the reason to work the big firm job is because you love it--or at least because the benefits exceed the costs. Not just because you are making 6 figures.

Why are the firm haters wrong? Because the map is not the terrain. Official salaries only tell part of the story. Firms are reluctant to lower official salaries, of course, because that looks bad. (In economic terms, law firm wages are elastic upward but inelastic downward.) But that does not mean that firms pay all associates at the official rate. In the past 5 years, in fact, a lot of big firms have added "part-time" partnership tracks. Part-time is actually a euphemism for a full time job averaging 40-50 hours per week, instead of 60-80 hours that most big firm associates put in. Associates on the slow track have lower annual billing targets, and in return they get paid less and take longer to make partner (say, 10 years versus 8 years).

In other words, "official" associate salaries only tell part of the story, and salaries on the big law firm market are undergoing a market self-correction. As well they should.

What is particularly interesting about the "part-time" track is that it was created largely at the urging of associates themselves. Many associates like their jobs, but do not like their hours. And they are willing to take less money (although still a good salary)--and in some cases they even forego a shot at partnership--in return for fewer billable hours. To turn again to economics, it's an application of the Laffer Curve--that at some point a person is not willing to work more for higher pay. At some point, the value of free time/quality of life exceeds the additional salary offered, and people say no.

I seriously doubt that we are going to see 50% raises given to law firm associates like we did during the dot com boom. But we are going to see incremental raises like those being implemented right now. The fact that they are incremental, however, does not mean they have little impact. Big firms will match each other dollar for dollar on paper, and as a result more and more people will try to work out other, more flexible deals so that they can have a life on the side.

Parents in Law (i.e. You Have Kids)

I was a parent during law school. I had two children going in, and three coming out. Wow, was that ever a challenge. I knew of one man who had graduated a few years before myself that had 8 children during law school. Who knows, maybe now he has more.

Plenty of law students are married. Enough of them have children to make this a point of interest.

If you want to read an interesting and rather mind-boggling description of Motherhood in law school, check out Mother In Law: One mom's journey through life and law school.

I will give some more comments on this if you are interested. adam dot letourneau@gmail dot com.

Admissions: Law School Rankings

I just read the current issue of Canadian Lawyer Magazine, where they included the most recent Canadian Lawyer Magazine Canadian Law School Rankings.

1. Osgoode Halle Law School (York University)
2. University of Toronto
3. University of Victoria
4. University of Calgary
5. University of Windsor
6. McGill University
7. Dalhousie University
8. University of New Brunswick
9. University of Western Ontario
10. University of Alberta
11. Queen's University
12. University of Saskatchewan
13. University of Ottawa
14. University of Manitoba
15. University of British Columbia

Failed to make the grade: Universty of Quebec at Montreal, University of Sherbrooke, University of Laval, University of Moncton.

I indicated in a previous post that I will email you the Canadian Lawyer Law School Ranking results for the past 5 years. I have had some requests for this list. If you still want it, don't be shy - shoot me an email - adam dot letourneau@gmail dot com. I would put it up here, but the mag probably wouldn't be happy about it.

To shed some light on this particular ranking system, I notice that my Alma Mater, University of Alberta, is at #10 this year.
Two years ago, it was #11.
Three years ago, #3.
Four years ago, #2.

Take another example: This year's #1 school - Osgoode.
2004: #2.
2003: #12.
2002: #13 (last).
2001: #15 (last).

Isn't that amazing. A school can go from #2 to #10 in four short years. Another school can go from #15 (last) to #1 (first) in four short years.

As you can tell, I am a huge skeptic about these rankings, which are a product of student-only feedback. It is compiled from input from graduating or recently graduated students.

So, I think it is high time to get a proper ranking system out there, and I propose to do so. Please help me by providing some feedback into what information you would like to have included in the ranking system. I look forward to hearing your comments.