Law School: Do your own CAN or Outline

Even if you find the very best CAN (Condensed Annotated Notes, also known as an outline) in the world for a particular course, you will want to create your very own, from scratch; CAN before you hit the exam room. You may think that you can get away without this step (and there may be a few of you out there who can do this), but for most of us, this is a necessary step in the learning, synthesizing and memorizing process. By physically writing your own review notes, you will most likely be able to recall information more quickly and efficiently. This is especially true for closed-book exams. For open-book exams, writing your own CAN will allow you to be more familiar with the information, and you will be able to flip more quickly through your notes during the exam.

I always found writing a CAN from scratch after studying my class notes and other materials to be an invaluable exercise to help me see where I am. I started with a fresh piece of paper or computer screen, and simply wrote out as much of the course as I wasable to in as little space as possible. I included all relevant cases, statutes, and supplementary information as possible, all the while trying to make as many links in the information as possible. I tried to remember why a particular case or statute was important in the big picture, whether it had altered or developed the law, and what the potential problems or solutions might be as a result of the reasoning of the case or statute. I may have included some personal comments about where I thought this case or statute may come up in an exam question, or would write myself little notes that would help me to readily recall a piece of information come exam time. Whatever helped, I included it. I tried to keep it as concise as possible, while trying not to omit potentially important information. This is a tough balance to strike, and it may take you a few times to get it figured out. The important thing is to avoid relying upon other people’s work in hopes that it will get you by. The truth of the matter is that it usually will only just get you by, or slightly less. To succeed, there is no better alternative than putting in that effort and making it happen for yourself.

A Word from the Wise – Practical Experience from some colleages of mine:

Unless you have a very bad and disorganized professor and you have to teach yourself the course, other people’s CANs are not the best or most efficient way to learn a course because it is actually the creation of the CAN that helps you learn the material much more than simply studying someone else’s. That said, it is better to read a commercial CAN or someone else’s CAN than nothing at all.
— Robin Penker, University of Alberta

To prepare for law school exams I would go through my notes and create my own “CAN”. Once that was finished, I would compare that to the commercial CAN and look for discrepancies. The next step was to create a list of cases from the course with a one-line explanation of the ratio. When I started, I would spend less time organizing and more time trying to study by reading the notes repeatedly. As school progressed, I found it more effective to spend much more time organizing notes and continuously revising them as I studied.
— Jaime Johnson, University of Alberta

What is your favourite way to prepare for an exam? (I know some of you like to keep it a secret, but remember, sharing always results in rewards later on - I speak from experience).

If you want some CANs/Outlines to help you get started, go to http://www.canadalawstudent.ca/cans.html where you will find links to CANs from different law schools, and all of my CANs from law school. Happy downloading!

Back in the the Saddle

Now that the Winter Olympics are over I can start posting on my blogs more regularly again.

I am joking, but only halfway. I have in the past two weeks experienced the Perfect Storm of (a) flu season in my household, (b) the Winter Olympics (mesmerizing to me even with NBC's atrocious coverage), and (c) some time-intensive scholarly research that together have waylaid me and kept me from my blogs. I note that the world has kept right on turning without me. But for those of you who check this blog regularly, thanks for doing so, and my apologies for not posting more frequently. I will try to do a little better from here on out. No promises, mind you--just good intentions.

Law School Admissions: Deferring law school in Canada

Many prospective law students do not realize that there is often an opportunity to defer your studies for up to one year. Note that not all law schools offer this option. However, it may be a good option for you. Some examples of good reasons to defer law studies for a year are:

1. Finishing a graduate degree. I know of one classmate who attempted to finish a Master of Arts degree concurrently, without joint-degree status, and ended up spending both summers tackling the issue. Had he taken a year off before studying law, he might have circumvented the high stress he experienced. He also would have opened up his summers to potentially work in the legal field. Another student attempted the same with a Master of Science and ended up spending her first summer doing something that she did not feel would help directly with her law career. However, both of these individuals had made a commitment to finish their graduate degrees.

2. Getting an offer for a job that you just cannot refuse. I had a friend who received an offer to work for the Liberal Party in Ottawa – something he had always wanted to do. He managed to get a deferral from some of the schools that he had applied to and was able to try the government job. It was a great résumé booster, and a fantastic opportunity that he would have missed otherwise.

3. You need to save up for school. Now you can take up to a year to work full time, get prepared, and the pressure will be off, because you have already been accepted.

Be sure that you apply for deferral in plenty of time, and that you put forward a very strong case. Do not just assume that a school will hold a spot for you once you have received an offer. Also check into tuition fee hikes or differential fees that your faculty may have scheduled. If waiting an extra year will add thousands of dollars to your cost, you should consider this in your decision-making.

Professor-Student Relations

No, this post is not about Professor-Student relationships. Rather, it's about how profs and students interact in this modern world of 24/7 access and e-mail. There's a great article in today's New York Times called To: Professor @ University.edu Subject: Why It's All About Me. You can link to the article here. I recommend it heartily.

This article paints a doom-and-gloom picture of teaching and the demise of deference from students to teachers. It's funny too; I never would have dreamed of skipping class and then asking the professor for copies of her teaching notes. And it's true that with e-mail, students are more likely than ever to contact professors, and ask some potentially odd questions.

Here's my take on it: this is just like anything else in our modern, internet-connected society. There's been a general decline in deference in our society for some decades now, but is that so bad, really? Is it better to expect people to earn respect than to automatically give it? Is it so bad to require professors, who live a wonderful life of relative academic freedom and flexible schedules, to be more responsive to their student constituencies? Isn't this a learning opportunity for teaching people how to interact as adults? Maybe some students didn't learn manners at home, and student-teacher relations are a perfect framework for reducing the manners deficit.

I have invariably found that when you tell someone what you expect from them, by and large you get it. I tell my students to be on time for class and to turn in assignments on time, and guess what: they do. I tell them how to analyze specific types of issues on a final exam--not giving the answer, but providing a useful framework for analysis--and guess what? Those who follow my instructions tend to do better on the exam. In the practice of law, the senior lawyer who tells the newbie lawyer what she expects and why is far more likely to get the desired result. So this is an opportunity to train students in the etiquette of proper communication with superiors.

Perhaps I am jaded by my years practicing in a big firm. A few student calls there and there, a few potential intrusions--they're nothing like what I am used to from my practice days. And we should never, ever, discourage professor/student interaction. Manage it, yes. Discourage it? No.

Law Practice and the Winter Olympics

I haven't posted for a while. Apologies for that, but the flu has hit my family pretty hard, and something had to give. So here's a quick post on two of my favorite topics: the practice of law and the Winter Olympics.

In my opinion, the Winter Olympics are far more fun to watch than the summer ones (curling and ice dancing aside), but that is beside the point. What is on point is that for the life of me I cannot fathom devoting four or more years of my life to pursuing a medal, when one slip can cost you the entire thing. Look at Michelle Kwan. She devoted a decade to pursuit of gold, dominated her sport, and came away without the ultimate prize. I'm not saying it's not a worthwhile pursuit; I'm just saying I don't get it.

Instead, I am much better at working to excel in the classroom and in the practice of law. Why? Because consistent excellency is what is rewarded there, not momentary shine. The practice of law is much more like the pro basketball season than it is like the Olympics. Long seasons filled with individual games that alone do not have a lot of meaning, but added up are terribly important. And a key to doing well in pro basketball (in addition to having natural talent, of course) is to make sure you have the fundamentals covered. No traveling violations. No shot clock violations. Strategic fouling. Inbounding the ball. You can be the best 3 point shooter ever, and if you don't do the basics, then you're toast. Getting back to the Olympics, if practicing law were an olympic sport it would be a marathon, not a sprint. But those are the summer games, which are largely boring in my view.

So in the practice of law, a lot of what you do is like dribbling the ball. You coordinate filings. Depose witnesses. Conduct factfinding teleconferences. Don't miss filing dates. It's not glamorous, but it's a key part of the game. And really, in becoming the expert on a particular deal or case, often you are the only one who can do these things efficiently--so you do them. For example, if a notebook of exhibits needs to be put together, who knows what exhibits are the proper ones? You do. Not your secretary. She might make the copies, but you do the prep work and the final check of the work product--that is, you do the very ordinary, but very crucial prep work.

And here's the real point: if you don't do that kind of thing, you will never get the opportunity to try the really big case or put together the novel corporate deal. You will not be getting the job done for either your client or the partners you work for. You likely will flunk out of practice. I have seen a number of lawyers, very bright people, flunk out of practice because they refused to master fundamentals like these. What a shame.

So for you students, bear this in mind the next time you are reading the "big cases" in your Con Law book. Remember that for every big case, there were thousands of more ordinary cases, with a lot of background work to them. But those cases were important to the clients involved--and after all, the clients are who you are supposed to be serving.

Success Stories: Trailer park to law school dean: The journey of Mayo Moran

If you are looking for some inspiration today, consider reading this article, written in the globe and mail about the University of Toronto law school's new dean, Mayo Moran. I was grateful to read that she is bucking the stodgy trends set by her predecessors and by the Bay-street firms. I hope that she can achieve some of her lofty goals to set a higher standard for our profession. She says Canadian law schools must rise to the challenge of producing a new generation of lawyers who respect "the significant ideals of our profession" and are fortified by "formidable intellectual strength and rigour." I especially liked her stated mortification of the classrooms that, in her words, have morphed into clattering "typing pools" with students clicking away on laptops.

I would also like to see the bar set higher for law school education. I would like a return to the more active, engaging style of lecture that one might have seen in The Paper Chase, a movie about the first year of law school at Harvard. All too many students get caught up in the details and forget to see the law through the forest. One of my favourite law school classes was one where the professor provided the class notes on-line the day before each class. This allowed you to download the notes, supplement them with your preparation reading, and then to truly listen and engage yourself each class. It was so much nicer to just plug in a few comments each class to further supplement your notes. Students engaged in dialogue more often, we covered far more material in a shorter period of time compared to other law school classes, and I genuinely enjoyed the class because of all of these things. Typing notes like crazy does not help you to learn legal concepts. Engaging in serious, and often difficult dialogue creates better students and better lawyers.

It was also refreshing to read about a legal education leader who has high ideals, who is not afraid to put up a fight for what she believes in.

If you know more about Dean Moran, feel free to leave a comment. Or, if you have a comment about a law professor or dean from your law school, I am sure that the rest of us would like to hear about it.

If you want to see other's ratings and comments about law professors at your law school, or a prospective law school, visit http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/SelectSchool.jsp. It is pretty amusing to see how various professors have been rated. I was surprised at how accurate the ratings were for some of my former law professors.

Big Firm Salaries Going Up (Again)

Apparently the increase of many big firm starting associate salaries to $135,ooo wasn't enough. Now some firms have raised the stakes with a move to $145,000. The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog has a detailed scoop on the subject.

This is such bad news. First year associates already can't earn their pay. It's impossible. Their billing rates are too high, so their collection percentages are low. And there's this thing called mentoring which has gone by the wayside (see my previous posts on this here and here), so associates have to learn by the "sink or swim" method. Quality training and learning involves achieving a balance between being quick on the uptake (a fair expectation for high paid associates) and allowing associates to engage in sometimes time-intensive learning that cannot be billed but makes them better lawyers. That does not happen at many firms, although some do emphasize learning, much to their credit.

This latest pay hike will just make the vicious cycle worse if it ripples through the private law firm community. Higher pay will mean more pressure on associates. More pressure will mean less leeway to make mistakes. Less leeway means more pressure. And so on. Where does it end?

Why Associates Have More Stress Than Partners

The practice of law has become increasingly high-pressured in recent decades, as salaries have gone up and revolutions in communications have reduced the turnaround cycle for work. There is more money at stake, and less time to do the work. Plus, clients are less loyal to firms than they used to be, and associates hop from firm to firm. The result is that there is a real squeeze going on: more money, less loyalty, less time, less room for error.

I don't say this with any sense of nostalgia for the "good old days." I'm just stating facts. In a way, it's a function of reaping what you sow--big salaries are not free money.

Rather, what I want to talk about is why, in this high pressure market, associates tend to feel more stress than partners. Why is that?

It's not because they're trying to make partnership, really. At least not most of it, in my opinion. That's because many associates do not want to make partner anymore. (See my previous post on this.) And it's not because associates work harder than partners--they don't. The brass ring of partnership is not the big prize it used to be--it's a whole lot of work and pressure. Partners have to supervise existing clients, court new clients, help run firms, deal with associates, and manage projects. In fact, in my experience, a lot of partners work harder than the associates who work for them. The partners I worked with in practice certainly worked extremely hard.

So why are associates more stressed?

One reason: control.

Partners have to answer to their very demanding clients, but within those parameters they control what gets done, and when. So if they want to delay one client's project until the last minute and then stay all night to get it done, that's the partner's decision. But the associates who have to stay too? They have no choice, and no control. Absolutely none.

And that, my friends, is stressful. No control over your schedule, no control over when you get to leave work, not knowing until the very last minute whether you will make your kids' school play or be able to meet your family or friends for dinner as promised.

Do not underestimate the power of choice as a stress-reducer. I work every bit as hard as a professor as I did in practice--hour for hour. But the stress is a lot less, and that largely comes down to control over when I work. Which I never had as an associate.

What's an associate to do? Other than quit, that is? There are multiple things, but here's one simple piece of advice I received from a colleague in my early days of practice: you can control when you come to work, but you can never control when you leave. So come in as late as you can, and expect to be late--plan for dinner at 10:00 p.m.

I followed that advice as a junior corporate associate, and this single piece of advice reduced my stress enormously. I recommend it heartily.

My Friend's Accident

I was all set to post on something else today, and then I got a letter this afternoon from the wife of a very good friend of mine from my exchange student days. I won't tell you his name, out of respect for his privacy, but I will tell you this: he is one of the most bighearted people I know, a real gem of a man, athletic, smart, tender and not afraid to show it. And he just had a severe spinal injury.

I don't know what his exact prognosis is, since I just got the letter from his wife. With all that is going on, she took time out of her schedule to let people know what was going on. She is as bighearted as he is. And I just can't believe it.

You see, I am 38, nearly 39 now. That's old enough feel mortal but young enough to still believe the Big Day is a long way off. And here is this powerfully athletic dude, a former military officer who pretty much excelled any sport, and he gets struck down in an instant. Just like that. In a freak accident while on vacation. I sure hope he recovers.

A number of my posts on this blog have to do with following your heart and finding meaning in your career and life. An event like this drives home the message more powerfully than any other example I can think of. Here is a guy I admire and respect, someone I learned a lot from through friendship. Someone I love. And here he is, reminding me again of how important it is to be true to yourself, since you never know what life may bring.

On Having a Quarterlife Crisis

There’s an excellent post today at Bridge and Tunneled, a blog describing itself as “A twenty-something’s take on the ‘Quarterlife Crisis’ from somewhere in the swamps of New Jersey.” The tone is spot-on for the current generation of new law school grads. And the blog author, Nemorino, clearly has good taste, since he links to this blog. Although he also cites Zoolander as one of his favorite movies (check out his blogger profile), so maybe not.

Anyway, today’s post on Bridge and Tunneled is about being a recent law school grad and not being quite sure what to do with your life. The thought is that a lot of people in their 20s feel like they are just marking time. Nemorino writes that for people currently in their 20s, "There's no clearly defined endpoint anymore, no fixed date where our lives as we know them will end abruptly and we'll be forced, like it or not, out into the real world." That's profound and wistful thinking.

Interestingly, though, being in my late 30s I actually do have the answer--or at least an answer. I know where the endpoint is. The endpoint is age 34.

At 30 you're still young. "Cool, now I'm in my thirties!" is a typical reaction. No one seems fazed by 30 anymore. And 31, 32, and 33 are still early 30s, so they’re generally fine too.

But 34? Now that's a whole different story. At 34 you only have one more year to round down your age and qualify as "early 30s." At 35 you are undeniably in your mid-30s, and at 36 you are one foot into your late 30s. 40 is closing fast. This realization hits like a load of bricks, and you soil yourself. Figuratively speaking, of course.

Here’s how it works: one minute you're 28 and have loads of time to figure your life out; the next minute you’re 6 years older and your financial planner (if you have one--which you probably don't because you’re still too young for that stuff, aren’t you?) is telling you you’ve missed several key years of investment compounding.

So Nemorino is right: it is absolutely critical to have a plan for your life when you are in your 20s, even if the plan constantly changes. Because if you do not, you soon will be 34 years old and in crisis. Happy birthday! But if you plan, you can keep your options open. Then, once you figure out what your professional calling is, you will have improved your odds of successfully landing a position in that field.

For me, my chief options were law partnership and law teaching, and I planned for both, even when I was not sure which one I would pick. As a result, I got to make my own choice, instead of having it made for me. I don't offer that anecdote so that everyone can feel really good for me. I offer it because I'm living proof that Nemorino's advice works when you follow it.

Law school proposed for Ontario's north and Aboriginal Law Students

Plans are underway for a new law school in Thunder Bay, the first in northern Ontario. It will be built at Lakehead University. Supporters of the plan believe establishing such a law school would make it easier for aboriginal students to pursue careers in law and encourage more lawyers to practise in northern communities, where legal services are often non-existent. I think this is a fantastic idea.

Apparently the university hasn't yet met with provincial education ministry officials to discuss accreditation requirements. If built, the institution would be Ontario's seventh law school and the first built since 1969. A 2004 report for Ontario law deans on the impact of tuition deregulation found the number of law students from the north had decreased between 1997 and 2002.

On the topic of Aboriginals law students...

There is a misconception held by many that Aboriginal students get a free ride in University, and subsequently in law school, and that they are somehow treated differently. There are rumours that Aboriginal applicants are guaranteed spots in law school if they apply, and that once accepted, they are graded differently. This is not true at all. I will try to shed some light on these preconceptions, while at the same time, providing information that will give Aboriginal applicants every advantage and opportunity to pursue a legal education.

The truth is that Aboriginal peoples are underrepresented in almost all areas of the Canadian economy. This underrepresentation is especially felt in law, an area where Aboriginal peoples require greater Aboriginal representation for all areas of law, including criminal, civil, and constitutional rights. More and more cases are coming forward and being heard in Canadian courts dealing with Aboriginal rights. Aboriginal peoples have unique rights entrenched in the Canadian constitution. As a result, there is a much higher need to have lawyers that are aware of, well versed in, and passionate about the rights of First Nations, Métis and Inuit. On the other hand, Aboriginal lawyers are needed to work for the Crown. Additionally, as more Aboriginal peoples are becoming involved in business ventures, there is a need for corporate and commercial lawyers who can be trusted and who have a good relationship with Aboriginal communities and individuals.

It is true that many law schools in Canada allot a certain percentage of spots available for Aboriginal and/or mature students. This percentage is often 10%. However, that does not mean that they always fill these spots or that the school is obligated to fill the spots with Aboriginal and/or mature students. The 10% number is a goal rather than a rule. As such, it is often the case that not all spots are filled by Aboriginal or mature students.

Some schools seem to attract a larger number of Aboriginal applicants. The College of Law at University of Saskatchewan and University of Victoria both have a relatively large contingency of Aboriginal law students. The University of Alberta does have an Indigenous Law Program, but the number of students was only 14 in 2004/2005 (out of a student body of about 500).
The process for applying to many law schools for Aboriginal students is a two-pronged approach. Aboriginal applicants have the option of attending a pre-law program at the University of Saskatchewan the summer before law school. Success at this program can lead to a conditional acceptance to some law schools. The program is aimed at preparing Aboriginal students for law school, in terms of study habits and curriculum. Attendees take property law. Successful students will get credit for this class, thus taking off some pressure during 1L. Acceptance is conditional on the student succeeding (in other words, passing) 1L. There are Aboriginal students who come out of the Saskatchewan program who do not succeed. However, the program supposedly does help many students to prepare and attempts to single out potential achievers amongst its attendees.

Aboriginal students can also be accepted unconditionally. This is often the case. This means that the Aboriginal applicant is rated alongside every other applicant. This happens before a conditional acceptance is considered.

Now, here is the truth of the matter. I believe that if you are an Aboriginal student, if you show sincere desire, and if you have a relatively decent GPA and LSAT score, then you stand a better chance than most applicants of obtaining acceptance to many law schools. Law schools that indicate that they encourage Aboriginal applications cannot say that they favour the idea of accepting an Aboriginal applicant. However, it is in their best interest to do so, as it looks very good for the law school when they can claim to have a decent contingency of Aboriginal students amongst their student body. However, remember this is the opinion of the author and that any reputable law school in Canada will never admit this idea. I just had to say it because I believe it to be true, and because I want to encourage any Aboriginal potential candidate to apply for law school because there really is a very high need for Aboriginal representation in law school and in the legal community.

For those of you who are not Aboriginal and who have read the above statements, please do not take a viewpoint that this is an unfair advantage given to Aboriginal students. The truth is that the number of applications from Aboriginal students is nowhere near what is needed to fill the 10% goal. It is also true that many Aboriginal people have faced extremely hard conditions in childhood and early adulthood, and that the odds are against them gaining access to university, let alone law school. I will leave the issue at that and hope that I do not create too much fuss.
If you are an Aboriginal applicant, I highly suggest that you do a lot of research on what each law school actually offers to its Aboriginal student body. Certain law schools claim to support their Aboriginal students in terms of counselling and study help. As much as you can, make sure that these claims are true. Also, do some research into what course offerings deal with Aboriginal legal issues. Most schools do not offer much in this way. However, in order to practice in this area, it is a very good idea to be as exposed to as much Aboriginal law as possible during your time in law school. The Kawaskhimon National Aboriginal Moot is an opportunity that is open to almost every law student across Canada and is a great opportunity to learn what it is like to research and practice Aboriginal law.

Mature students are defined as those who are 35 years or older. As with Aboriginal applicants, there may be a certain percentage of spots "held" for mature applicants. As well, special consideration may be given to real-life experience. For example, if you have some connection to law in any way, you should emphasize this in your application résumé and statement of interest. Again, mature students are considered alongside all other applicants first. If they are not successful in this round, they may be considered in a mature student round. You should be sure to contact your law schools of interest to find out particular mature student criteria and standards.

I think that if it is established, with proof that Northern sections of provinces are under-lawyered, and are short on Aboriginal law graduates, and if they think that a new law school within the proper vicinity will help, then go for it.

I look forward to your comments on the above items of interest.

Law School: Grades, Grades, Grades – or, does it matter?

Most of the literature that you will read about law school will tell you that grades are the single most important focus of your first and second years of law school. The competition is fierce for top jobs at law firms in Canada. Further, the competition is getting fiercer for jobs in general in Canada. I received better than average grades in law school, with improvement each subsequent year. I wish I had concentrated more on grades in my first year, but at the same time, I have little regret, and am well pleased with how things turned out.

Grades can be very, very important in 1L if you are vying for a summer job at a legal firm, which can subsequently lead to a guaranteed article at that firm. As well, stacking up your law school transcript before your second summer can be important in setting yourself apart to law firms. This is especially true in larger urban centres such as Toronto and Calgary. If it is your desire to work at a national or large city firm then make sure you put grades at the top of your priority list.

Although I believe grades are great indicia of commitment, hard work and intelligence, I do not think that they provide a complete portrait of the individual. This is why law recruitment committees also include such criteria as personality, experience, fit with the firm culture, and other personal definers in their recruitment material and information. Grades will definitely help you to get in the door of a law firm for an interview, but it is the interview that will ultimately determine your success in obtaining employment at a law firm. I am not aware of too many interviewers who would take an individual on the spot if they had a 4.0 GPA without interviewing them. Nor would they hire a 4.0 law student who made a terrible impression at an interview.

So, get your grades up as high as possible. This may be increasingly important as each year goes by, as article positions decrease, and as competition increases. However, do not ignore development of non-law related interests, skills, and personality. It is important to come across as unique, while at the same time convincing a recruiter that you will fit into their ‘team’. This is a difficult thing to achieve, and I do not have specific advice for you to achieve the perfect balance. My advice is to work hard. Work harder than hard. Achieve your very best. At the same time, try to remain sane, fun, excited, and exciting. Bring passion to school every day, and bring passion to your interviews.

Grades are obviously more important at top law firms than they might be at smaller law firms. There seems to be a pecking order in the recruitment process. Top firms usually choose the top students. Many of those students end up choosing those top firms. However, it is not unheard of to have a very good law student choose a mid-size or small-size firm, or another legal setting altogether. I really admire those who choose for themselves, rather than going to where they are expected to go. Some high achievers are afraid that they will not be challenged or well compensated unless they are at top law firms. I have done research that challenges this notion.

One example includes Canada Justice, or a provincial justice office. These environments can be extremely challenging and rewarding, include a very decent and predictable salary, along with very good benefits. As well, the ‘billable hours’ are usually less demanding, which can lead to a much better balance. Another example is going solo in a small community. I am personally aware of such sole practitioner lawyers who bill $300,000 to $400,000 a year. Even after paying their business rent, expenses, and support staff salaries, they can make a very decent 6-figure income, often while working a very regular 9-5 type schedule. A third example is corporate counsel positions. Often, people who work as lawyers for corporations can earn very high salaries, be highly challenged, while enjoying very regular and decent schedules.

All of these examples require a lot of planning. They are not something that is necessarily achieved immediately upon graduating, or even soon after graduating. However, my point is that it is possible to be very happy as a lawyer outside of the big firms.

Movie Screenplay

So, my wife and I have begun work on a new screenplay. It's law related, of course. I am pretty excited about it. It's something I have always wanted to do. Carpe diem.

Big Firm Economics 101: Why are Associate Salaries so High?

I have blogged a fair bit lately about starting associate salaries at big U.S. law firms. (See my previous posts here and here.) That’s natural, I suppose. It’s in the news, and new associates at blue chip firms certainly make a very good living. But why are starting salaries at big firms so high?

There are a lot of answers one might give. Some of the more popular ones are wrong in many ways, but yet contain a seed of truth. So here’s my modest attempt to help set the record straight.

Three common answers to the money question are:

1. Big law firms throw money away on junior associates because big firms make money hand over fist.
2. Those poor associates make their firms a big profit, so they deserve big bucks.
3. Lawyers have a monopoly on the right to practice law. This reduces competition and means firms can charge their clients more.

Let’s take each one of these in turn.

ANSWER ONE: Big law firms throw money away on junior associates because law firms make money hand over fist.

What’s true about this? That’s easy: big firms make a lot of money. Just look at some recent figures. The top 100 U.S. law firms grossed US$41.7 billion in 2004, with the top four (including my old firm, Baker & McKenzie) raking in over $1 billion each.

That’s astonishing, really. Years ago—say, back in the ancient 1960s and 1970s—being a lawyer was a great way to make a good living, but a hard way to get rich. Being in business was a much better way to strike gold (think Apple and Microsoft in the 1970s, or high tech companies today). But now? Bill Gates still makes a lot more money than even top law firm partners, but there are more opportunities to be a corner office partner than to be the top-dog entrepreneur. So in terms of risk versus payoff, practice at a big law firm is not a bad bet.

What’s false about this? A lot, actually. Law firms do not pay newbie associates tons of cash because they can—they pay them high wages because they have to. Law firms are private enterprises, and they respond to market forces. Sure, like any entity or person they have their cognitive biases that result in incorrect decisions, but overall their economic decisions (accounting for imperfect information or assumptions) are startlingly rational. They pay market rates to attract top talent—and if the market rate is high (which it is), then that is what they pay.

ANSWER TWO: Those poor associates make their firms a big profit, so they deserve big bucks.

What’s true about this? Well, law firm associates do work hard . Take it from me, a veteran of the big law firm trenches.

What’s false about this? Newbie associates hardly ever make their firms a profit.

Think about it. Starting associates get such big salaries, and yet they have no practice experience. Law school is only a three year course of study, and in today’s sophisticated world filled with specialty areas of practice, students learn only the rudimentary basics in law school. I’ve been on all four sides of the matter—(1) as a law student, (2) as a newbie associate, (4) as a seasoned lawyer managing projects and other lawyers, and (4) now as a law professor—so I know what I’m talking about.

So big firm newbie associates rarely pay their own way. With salaries approaching $150,000 and other expenses (office rent and other overhead, benefits, insurance, etc.), newbies cost firms around $250,000 per year. Sure, they bill at $200 per hour, but is all that time collectible, as they learn the ropes and the law? Absolutely not. A solid mid-level associate might collect around 85-90% of her or his billed time (remember that it’s not just about the quality of the work—some clients just don’t pay in full, or get special discount rates from the firm), but newbie collection rates are much lower. They usually don’t break even until their third year of practice.
So it would be better to pay junior associates a lot less, and then increase associate salaries exponentially in year three. But that’s not how it works—which is unfortunate, both for the law firms who pay too much for newbie associates and for the newbie associates who feel too much pressure to be profitable.

ANSWER 3: Lawyers have a monopoly on the right to practice law. This reduces competition and means firms can charge their clients more.

What’s true about this? Well, the practice of law is a monopoly granted by each state. And lawyers should never forget that the privilege to practice law is just that: a privilege, not a right.

We should also bear in mind that aspirational goals (like the obligation of licensed lawyers to do public service and pro bono work) are generally doomed to failure. When push comes to shove between public service and a screaming (and paying) client, the client almost always wins. I’ve been there. Lawyers are in business, and they are rational actors. Clients pay the bills.

What’s false about this? Removing lawyers' monopoly on law practice would not do as much as you might think to reduce lawyer salaries. It would have some impact, to be sure—after all, you can’t go into court as a lawyer unless you are one. But what about other areas of law? Transactional work? Regulatory work? The effect would be minimal in many cases.

First, the assumption that all lawyers are overpaid is premised on the assumption that everything lawyers do requires a law license. That is not true. You do not need to be a lawyer to draft or sign a contract, facilitate a corporate deal, or to provide regulatory advice in many areas of practice (like import/export law, my old stomping ground). Companies can sign their own contracts and structure their own deals, and in some cases (typically in regulatory areas) non-lawyer consultants can represent clients.

Yet lawyers still dominate transactional and regulatory work, at least at the high end of the market. In my experience, law firms often offer more creative and critical thinking—and thus more value. So they are able to charge higher fees, and make more money. Not because they have an unbreakable monopoly—they have no real monopoly at all. Their profitability is because they offer the best quality service. The easier work goes to consultants (and some law firms) who charge less, and that is a good thing—clients pay less for the easier work. But the hard stuff? Big firms do it for a premium—which again is a good thing, since clients get value for their dollar. And that’s no different from any other sector of the economy.

* * *

This is a topic where passions run high. Some people like lawyers, and some do not. Those who like lawyers often defend them come what may, while those who do not typically take the opposite stance. And usually the answer lies somewhere in between. This is my attempt to set out a few of my thoughts on the matter. There's more to be said; I'd like to hear what you think.

On Debt and Law School

There's a good article today on Law.com concerning the massive debt loads many law students carry. While some big national firms recently increased starting salaries by $10,000, many more firms have held fast. And even for those that did hike salaries, that is the only raise in the last five years.

Now, that in and of itself is not a bad thing--first year lawyers often incur losses for their firms (i.e., cost firms more than they bring in), which suggests they are paid more than they are worth in the short term. And getting an exorbitant salary can be a Faustian bargain, as I discussed in an earlier post on this blog.

But when you compare the lack of recent raises to the increases in tuition levels over recent years, then you have a real problem. With average tuition debt increasing dramatically in the past decade, the pressure to work for the big bucks to pay off loans is even greater. It likely scares some good people away from law school, and it certainly makes lower paying social services jobs less viable for those who do attend.

A recent commentator to some of my posts (on January 5 and January 7) argued vociferously that the solution is to make law school optional--that you should be able to practice law either by passing the bar OR going to law school. Check out those previous posts and comments. I disagree strongly with the notion that law school is not needed--if anything, we should require law school and dispense with the bar exam, which is largely a memorization contest. But that commentator was dead on in saying that high paying law jobs often attract people for the money, when we would be better off as a society if more people went into public service work. I'm not saying that high paying law jobs (or law firms) are bad; I enjoyed my big law firm experience. I am saying, though, that big salaries sometimes lure people who really would be happier doing something else.

Dean Richard Matasar of New York Law School has been saying for several years now that there are probably too many law schools in this country, and that many of them may not survive the next 20 years or so. New law schools are continuing to crop up nationwide anyway, but Matasar might be right. Law schools have large fixed costs if they are going to do their jobs right and give students a proper education--after all, practical courses and large faculties (to improve professor-student ratios) cost money. And if the money doesn't come from endowments or state coffers, then it has to come out of student pockets.

So how do we solve the tuition-debt dilemma? It's something I think about a lot, and there is no easy answer. Do we need to revamp the current system, or is society better served by the existing approach, which enables more people to go to school but makes them pay extravagent amounts for that privilege?

Motivation

I went to write a post this evening, and could think of nothing important to write. So, I decided to post some pics of some people who are very special to me. Enjoy.