The always reliable Viva Chen over at The Careerist writes about three law schools adjusting their enrollment:
- 20th-ranked George Washington cutting;
- 44th-ranked Hastings cutting; and
- Everybody’s laughingstock, bottom-ranked Cooley, opening a new campus in Florida to add to its Michigan campuses with 4,000 students spread between Lansing, Grand Rapids, Auburn Hills, and Ann Arbor.
GW and Hastings are being rational and reacting to the oversupply of newly minted JD’s; not much requires profound explanation about that.
But Cooley? What gives?
The plan seems to be to bolster Cooley’s revenues by diversifying out of recession-clobbered Michigan.
I get it.
Too bad it elevates the school’s self-interest above that of hundreds of students.
No, it’s actually not what you think.
The joke among associates and junior partners (people don’t get to be senior partners unless they know better) is that “I didn’t go to law school to be a used car salesman.” This hoary bromide is trotted out whenever they’re urged to market themselves and their firm.
Get over it.
Or, if you prefer Cher’s interpretation in Moonstruck, “Snap out of it!”
The fact is in today’s economy you need to know how to market yourself and your firm, if for no other reason than self-defense.
Prof. Silvia Hodges
Now to the rescue comes Prof. Silvia Hodges of Fordham Law (disclosure: a friend in whose classes both Bruce and Janet, the folks behind JD Match, have guest-lectured) with a new course in Marketing for Lawyers.
“Marketing is really important to your career,” says second-year student Jordan Franklin. “It shouldn’t be a dirty word.” Though Franklin has lined up a summer associate position in Florida, he says he eventually will want to start his own firm. Law schools, including Fordham, he says, tend to assume that everyone wants to work for Big Law. “No one says you should start your own firm,” says Franklin.
The students seem to love the fact that the class is steeped in reality, but I wondered whether other law schools—especially the top ones—are ready for a course that blatantly acknowledges that salesmanship is critical to success in law.
Hodges admits that teaching anything practical in a law school meets resistance, though she says she had no problem convincing Fordham. “Many schools hesitate offering too [many practical courses], perhaps fearing that might have too much of a vocational touch.”
Ah, yes, the myth that people don’t attend law school for jobs—which also feeds into the myth that law is not a business.
Would I have signed up for this course when I was in law school?
I hope I would have had the good sense to realize that solid business skills are complementary, not antithetical, to practice. Then again, those were palmier days on the economic front. Still, I wish I’d had the option.
I always enjoy leafing through Money and Smart Money magazines; they seem to arrive the same day and stories within make for good blog fodder. Today I whipped through every page of each and finally spotted some information worth sharing with the JD Match community. What follows is a list of websites oriented to mostly money saving applicable to many of us. These are extracted from the May 2012 Money magazine in a feature called Best Deals on Everything.
- Credit and Savings — depositaccounts.com will find banks or credit unions near your home with the best rates for a checking account. If you follow the requirements, you can get a credit union account for 4% savings.
- Credit Rewards — NerdWalletcom — I am in awe of anyone who coupons religiously, participates in credit card loyalty programs and actually gets some perks out of them. If you have a credit score of 700 or higher, then you should get a rewards rate of 1.5% or more. Hit this site to see how you can play the game a bit more beneficially.
- Daily Credit Card Offers for Points, miles, etc. — MyBankTracker.com — several times a year, there are cards that offer a 30,000 miles bonus. Don’t miss out on these; hit this site or NerdWallet.com and watch.
- Free College Courses — ocwconsortium.org — Open Courseware Consortium provides a list of free online college courses including 1800 offered at M.I.T. Of special note is UC-Irvine that offers “The Fundamentals of Personal Financial Planning.”
- Make a Purchase using Decide.com which helps you time your buy based on a pricing history algorithm, among other factors.
From Kiplinger’s Personal Finance, I picked up a few more:
- Healthcare.gov has all health insurance plans listed with detail about benefits, deductibles, payments and more.
- Looking for a smartphone? Kiplinger’s says the Samsung Galaxy S II and Epic 4G Touch (Sprint) are the best phones for the money…about $230 with a two-year contract.
- Enjoy a good podcast? Check out Freakonomics with topics ranging from parenting to hitchhiking. It’s available on iTunes or at Freakonomicsradio.com.
- Cheapism.com lists low-priced products in nine categories and offers tips on which make for a good deal.
These were some of the ones I found most interesting and general for a wide range of audiences. Which sites might you add to this collection?
It’s been widely reported that the number of people taking the LSAT took a nosedive, with applicants down more than 15% this year over last (and they were down last year over the year before). The question isn’t whether this is a good thing or a bad thing in the abstract; the question is whether the “right” people are taking the LSAT, and the answer appears to be a resounding no. The people taking the LSAT have skewed towards those doing poorly.
The always hyper-articulately entertaining Elie over at Above The Law has the whole story, but we wanted to point out something that seems intriguing to us given the skew of those who are dropping out from taking the LSAT: The best and the brightest are fleeing in droves compared to the, well, not-so-good and not-so-bright.
What could possibly explain this?
Here are a few theories:
This is courtesy of the Atlantic:
So the smart kids got the memo. Law school is largely a losing game, and they’re not going to play, even though they can probably count on a better hand than most. Meanwhile, the number of laggards applying has barely budged.
Maybe that’s just what makes the smart kids the smart kids.
Here’s Elie’s theory:
But there’s another reason the dumber people are being left behind in law school. It’s because the smarter people have more options. For most people, being a lawyer sounds like a boring thing to do. Safe and relatively well-paid, but boring as all hell. As the economy gets better, people with skills — even if their only skills are being awesome at taking tests — find that there are other, less boring options out there. In a good economy, smarter people feel better at taking risks. Hell, if things don’t work out, they can always go back to law school.
What we’re seeing here is a bit of a legal brain drain. It’s a drain that will continue to happen as the economy improves, and legal education continues to be wildly over priced relative to the expected value of the education. If law schools want to attract smarter people, they’ll have to start offering a better deal.
But in the meantime, there appear to be plenty of people dumb enough to continue buying what law schools are selling.
Wouldn’t it be funny if we get to the point where law school is what you do when you aren’t smart enough to do anything else? Wouldn’t it be a riot if it’s actually been like that all along?
What if there’s another explanation?
I like the analogy to state-run lotteries, which economists gleefullly, and PC-incorrectly, describe as “taxes on poor people.” (Sorry, folks, I’m just the messenger here.)
Paul Campos, author of the addictive, radically heterodox, and brutally insightful Inside the Law School Scam, floated something like this hypothesis in a different context a few days ago.
In the case of both lotteries and law schools, the crucial ideological justification for the game is that the participants are entering into it voluntarily. This is why the one thing on which even the most dedicated defenders of the legal academic status quo agree is that law schools should be transparent about outcomes. Nobody is willing to defend a gamble in which those who run it lie about the odds. But here is where the analogy between lotteries and law schools is most troubling. After all, the state doesn’t need to lie about the odds to get the poorest of its citizens to spend nearly one out of every ten dollars on lottery tickets. “All you need is a dollar and a dream!” appears to work just as well, in at least some social contexts, as “98% of our graduates have jobs nine months after graduation.”
In other words, what if you give people good information about the extent to which you’re ripping them off, and they insist on getting ripped off anyway? Of course in the world in which rational agents maximize their utility on the basis of adequate information regarding costs, benefits, and risk this can’t happen by definition. But it turns out we don’t live in that world. We live in a world of markedly bounded rationality, where people are prone to optimism bias, have short time horizons and poor options within them, and are therefore more than willing to spend a dollar on a dream — or $150,000 that they don’t have as the case may be.
What if law school is, for those who can’t do much better than the low 140s on the LSAT, a form of particularly pernicious regressive tax?
What could be more devastating to $150,000 and a dream than that?
This may very well be old news, as the story appeared March 22, 2012 in the Wall Street Journal.
Across the country, there are 14 law suits brought by law students against their law schools that accuse the schools of “luring students with misleading postgraduate job statistics and leaving them saddled with debt at a time of contraction in the legal industry.”
Nine New York Law School graduates alleged in a lawsuit that New York Law School’s marketing materials stated that between 90 percent and 92 percent of law students secured full-time jobs with law firms after graduation.
A judge in New York sided with the law school and threw out the case suggesting the students were smarter than that and could ascertain their options before making choices about where to attend post-graduate college and for which advanced degree.
The students sought $225 million in damages from the school. The plaintiffs’ lawyer David Anziska is going to appeal, and he has led efforts to sue other law schools across the country, as well.
So, I need to ask, law student readers, is this a waste of time, good practice for your future as a trial lawyer, or will it put a black mark on your curriculum vitae when you interview for a position with a law firm?
It seems to me that anyone entering law school is highly intelligent. They conduct extreme due diligence to research law school options, rankings, cost, scholarships, and more. People entering law school know the situation in the legal sector is dire for employment directly from school. That’s a risk everyone takes upon making the decision to enter law school, right?
How then should these plaintiffs across the country expect to win especially in light of the New York Supreme Court justice’s decision to toss this case out? And, a final question…if these law student graduates are saddled with exorbitant debt from law school, how then are they paying Mr. Anziska for his legal fees to bring this case and appeal?
Just asking.
Credit: SmashingRobots.com
The robots are coming to a hospital near you. The graying of America is adding more pressure on the nation’s hospitals with nurse and physician shortages imminent. What that also means is cost pressures and a shortage of hospital workers to cover 24/7 shifts and a full-house of patients.
Enter robots; there are surgical droids that suture wounds (better than humans) and ones that swim in the blood stream, too (called nanobots). Next up are the service robots trained to carry laundry or a tray of meds down corridors ala the robot celebrities in Star Wars.
One robot in particular called TUG is built by Aethon. Silicon Valley’s El Camino Hospital uses 20 of these already. Each has hauling power up to 500 lbs, continuous operation up to 10 hours, and runs on four 12-volt batteries.
Its features are amazing — two button operation, navigates around obstacles and detects obstacles with sonar and laser range finders, and uses wireless signals to select floors on elevators. Here are some of the companies active in the robotics space in health care:
- Aethon in Pittsburgh that makes the droids (as stated above)
- iRobot Corp, Bedford, Mass. (recently announced its foray into the health care sector)
- InTouch Health, Inc., Santa Barbara, Calif. (makes video-enabled robotic devices)
This story first appeared March 15, 2012 in the Wall Street Journal. One of the hospital executives featured in the article said while physicians and nurses “love the droids,” patients and visitors see the robots as a novelty and sometimes want to “jump in front of them.”
Segue.
Should there be an area of legal practice called robotic law? Imagine this scenario — a visitor jumps in front of a robotic droid that malfunctions (it doesn’t “stop on a dime” as the story alludes). The droid continues to run over the human, and the human suffers injuries. Human sues the robot and the robot manufacturer and the hospital for damages, bodily injury and the like.
Would the robot manufacturer adopt all culpability in this situation and represent all the non-human entities put to work in hospitals? Or, does each robotic droid carry insurance of its own? Or, does the hospital cover each robot as if it were a human employee?
This scenario is far fetched…or, maybe not! What do you think, law students and law firms? Is this a burgeoning area of law that may need to become a legitimate practice area? As Bruce MacEwen, JD, president of JD Match says, “As long as the harm is foreseeable it’s actionable…see this…Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
As an aside, the story also said robots are a boon for software and application developers to write new programs that mirror those developed for smartphones, gaming and other consumer electronics. While robotic law may not be real today, there certainly is opportunity for law school grads to enter immediately into the world of intelligent tech…carpe diem!
You may already be aware of the recent hubbub over an employer seeking the log-in and password for a potential job candidate’s Facebook account. You can read the accounting of the situation here and here. You can also read the backlash all over, but here are some examples to refresh your recollection about the inanity of the entire issue.
Since when should employers gain access to a job candidate’s personal Facebook account? When someone goes through the customary interview process that includes:
- Resume review
- Skype interviews
- Reference checks
- In-person interviews
- Background check
- School transcripts
- Writing samples
- Personality/behavioral profile assessments
- Review of bar exam scores and law school documents
- Etc.
…then why on earth should having access to a Facebook account tip the scale towards a to hire/not to hire decision?
What about this option?
The job applicant allows someone from the recruiting team to like their Facebook page for 24 hours and that person can go take a gander around the applicant’s timeline. Then, everyone agrees to unlike the relationship. This is not my preference; in fact, I have zero preference for abiding by these requests.
What opinion might you have on this, law students?
If you’re the final of two candidates for a choice position in a law firm and you get asked for your Facebook password as the final step before an offer, what will you do? There’s no certainty this will happen, but it’s a question you ought to prepare for.
Twitter, Too
There’s one more thought to share about the boundaries of social media, and this story comes courtesy of Above The Law:
A high school senior (with three months to go) was expelled, not suspended, due to his use of an f-bomb laden tweet he alleges was posted from home and not from school. The principal apparently monitors all tweets of all students at Garrett (IN) High School; this act was allegedly considered seriously egregious and the boy fell victim to the zero tolerance rule.
Hard core? In my opinion, absolutely…as said in Above The Law, the tweet (with a majority of f-bombs) was not bullying, did not attack a certain person, was not blaspheming faculty or the school and was written by a teenage boy with three months to go until graduation.
Watch for what the parents will do next to get their boy reinstated; should be interesting.
What these several examples boil down to are more of what’s to come. Those of you entering internet law, rights to privacy, protection of identity and, the scope of “fair use” and the boundaries of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act have a world of opportunity ahead with the convergence of social media on all aspects of employment, education, careers, personal and professional branding, and life in general.
Thoughts from Bruce MacEwen
I invited Bruce MacEwen, Esq., president of JD Match and founder of Adam Smith, Esquire to weigh in, and he shares:
“The real problem here is that “zero tolerance” mentality. Were these authorities never young? Did they never make a mistake? Did they never do anything they regretted later—possibly years later?
How about a small dose of plain old human perspective and common sense? Let’s face it: The overwhelming majority of private, personal activities are just that: Private and personal. They have nothing to do with job performance or job potential.
Of course, if those authorities can’t see their way to a modicum of temperance on this front, I have another idea: Job seekers can reveal their Facebook passwords on condition the children of the authorities do the same to the job seeker.”
What’s your thinking, dear readers?
From the Front: A Report by Our Student Ambassador at Michigan Law
“I’m still looking for a job. Between you and me . . . should I bother using this?”
Okay, I get it. Skeptical friend receives my mass email advertising JD Match to the law school list-serve, and knows I’ll give it to him straight.
And I suppose that question was better than the most common alternative: “I’m not really interested in dating another law student . . . should I bother using this?”
But the best response– once we established that JD Match is not a dating service for lawyers (well, not in the conventional sense, at least) – was the one I responded with:
“You want a firm job. JD Match is a service that will expose you to law firms and help you land that firm job. Oh, and it’s free. So why wouldn’t you bother using this?”
It’s a pretty easy sell to law students; after all, logical reasoning was 50% of the LSAT. The key is just getting the word out, and that’s what being a student ambassador for JD Match has been all about. I’ve taken a two-pronged attack: emailing and “tabling.” The emails, titled “Start Your Job Search Today with ‘JD Match’” give a quick pitch, include a link to the site, and encourage students to speak with me to learn more. The real fun, however, has been setting up shop in the law school at a JD-Match-swaggified table. T-shirts, brochures and magnets lure them in (candy, of course, plays no role) and then JD Match speaks for itself. It’s no surprise that, after Michigan Law learned about JD Match, Michigan now trails only New York in states with the most site “sign-ons.”
Moral of the story? There is a need and demand for JD Match. But you have to know what it is first…
Credit: Wall Street Journal
Is your alma mater in the Final Four? Or, was it upset on the road through March Madness? Third question…did you cry, guys?
Today’s Wall Street Journal has a cover feature (you know the one at center bottom) about crying. Apparently, tears are flowing freely during, after and before games. No one is safe – there are cheerleaders, coaches, parents, fans, and, alas, coaches (!) bawling everywhere. Seems the TV cams are having a hey-day in the process trying to capture the tears (let’s hope the mascara is water proof, cheerleaders!).
Not everyone admits to crying; some of the players adamantly deny they had one droplet rolling down a cheek. Apparently, these machismo males didn’t get the memo that crying is the new normal at sporting events and how about law school graduation?
What do think, Gentlemen? Will you shed a few, gasp, tears when you graduate from law school? Pent-up emotion is expelled via tears, and it’s only human to blubber sometimes; yet, it’s an embarrassment to freely admit it happens on national TV.
I’ll admit, after motherhood, the tears flow a lot more spontaneously especially when it comes to sad movies about death, children and horrible crimes. Does that happen with fathers, too?
- Look at the first line in this blog post, “For over 20 years as a physician, I’ve witnessed the healing power of tears.” (Wow, this doctor could be sisters to Kathy Griffin!)
- How about this one in Psychology Today where a New York Times reporter calls crying “emotional perspiration.” We all know what perspiration is – detox!
- And, gents, you may want to seek out a program like this one in San Francisco Called Men of Tears – men of all ages gather to cry, learn how to shed tears, or release anxiety built up over years of frustration.
According to the Wall Street Journal… “Crying has become a culturally acceptable expression of victory in the macho worlds of sports, politics and the military,” said Michael Messner, the author of Power at Play: Sports and the Problem of Masculinity.
So, March Madness 2011 looms to a close Monday; perhaps you’re graduating law school in the next 12 months…what do you think? Are you gonna cry?
Everyone knows the popularity of video interviews is increasing. For anyone seeking a job, not just law students, this medium holds many challenges and opportunities. It’s time to master Skype, and the tips below, presented by JD Match CEO Janet Stanton, should give you a good head start, be wonderful reminders, or introduce you to video interviewing if you’ve yet to engage with it.
Janet Stanton, CEO of JD Match says:
credit: blog.staffnetinc.com
Polishing interviewing skills is a year-round exercise, and law students should prepare for meetings in non-traditional settings such as Skype or mobile web cams. While some people may scoff at the perceived ease of doing a job interview on Skype, it’s not as simple as it looks. Below are my suggestions for law students interested in honing interviewing skills using Skype as the communications medium of choice. Law firms interested in keeping interviewing costs at a minimum are turning to Skype as a way to screen candidates prior to bringing them in for a face-to-face meeting.
- Skype “is the same, but it’s not.” This is, after all, an interview and many of the fundamentals of interviewing still apply. Prepare and rehearse story delivery in nuggets rather than as a single narrative. Lead each response with the most important and relevant points. Prepare insightful questions for the law firm, and send a thank you note.
- Set the stage. Ensure the ambiance projected to interviewers underscores gravitas and attractiveness as a candidate. The background should look professional and neat bookshelves, or a subdued, warm-colored wall are always acceptable. Plants add a nice touch. Ensure roommates, children and pets are neither seen nor heard.
- Check the lighting. Natural lighting is best, so if a monitor can be set up in front of a window, that’s ideal. If not, try positioning a lamp at about forehead level. Test different placements, and look on screen to see what looks most flattering. Avoid back lighting; as faces become black blobs to anyone viewing. Angle the waist slightly forward toward the screen/webcam to appear engaged.
- Wardrobe, please. Of course, dress professionally just like for any in-person interview; no cargo pants below camera level! Colors are entirely different on-screen than they are in person; wear dark, though not black, suit. A blue shirt or blouse should replace the white one worn to in-person interviews. Reds are unpredictable on screen, and avoid stripes or strong patterns.
- Makeup, too. Acknowledge the differences of being on-screen. Ladies, use subtler hues; do wear some makeup, so as to not look washed out. Both ladies and gents should consider a little face powder to avoid any greasy shine.
- It may seem counterintuitive, but look into the camera, not at the screen. Eye contact is so critical during a Skype interview! So, do look at the camera always instead of watching body and face movements on the screen. Remember to smile and be enthusiastic, as Skype tends to dampen one’s personality.
- Speak clearly and a little more slowly than usual. No connection is as clear as in-person; so, allow for that. Also, it’s easy to “talk” over others on Skype. Be sure the questioner has finished asking his or her question before responding.
- Tech prep. Ensure your internet connection is working properly; don’t use wi-fi as it can be unreliable. Become comfortable using Skype if you’re new to it. Turn off email, TweetDeck, mobile phones, and other devices that may ping, ring or chirp during an interview.
- Dress rehearsal. Beyond the usual practice sessions in the mirror, set up a dress rehearsal a couple of days before the interview. Ask a friend a) with a Skype account and b) who will give you honest feedback to play the part of the interviewers. Stage the background, don an interviewing suit, set lighting, powder the nose, chin and forehead. Test audio, video, speech delivery and practice pausing while others speak. Adjust accordingly so everything during the actual interview is perfect!
Do you have any tips to share about Skype interviews?
The aging of America is not going away any time soon. What that means for law school students, young associates and advancing lawyers is an opportunity to tap the pulse of issues affecting seniors in this country.
There’s no better way to check in than with a round-up of topics from the March AARP magazine. Anyone interested in elder law might like to pay attention to what’s below; others may be able to learn a few things for their parents:
- Jim Toedtman
Jim Toedtman, Editor, AARP Bulletin
, editor, AARP Bulletin kicks off the March 2012 issue with a call for seven fewer F-35 joint strike fighters, “sleek, $133 million supersonic jets for battling a weapon that hasn’t been imagined by an enemy that remains unknown.” If the nation bought seven fewer from its current order of 2,443, a handheld computer tablet could be purchased for every first-grader in America, he says.
- File secure tax returns via these tips: no faxing, do not give social security numbers to strangers on the phone; hand returns to postal carriers or put them directly into a blue postal box; do not use wireless networks to file returns.
- Bullying is happening among older adults in retirement communities, assisted-living centers and nursing homes. Facilities are asking residents to sign codes of conduct and elder-care advocates are being invited to step in and monitor.
- There are 9 million veterans 65-years-old and older in the U.S. in 2010.
- In a story, “The Worst Place to Be If You’re Sick” (doesn’t “hospital” come to mind immediately?), apparently, 100,000 Americans die in hospitals from preventable mistakes. A January report released by Medicare says hospital staff did not report 86 percent of harms done to Medicare patients in hospitals. Mistakes run the gamut — surgeons snips the wrong blood vessel; staff doesn’t adequately disinfect the room and patient gets a superbug; toxic doses of medication administered by mistake; etc.
- When a older adult must be admitted to the hospital, they need to bring a personal advocate (or hire one, but the profession is not licensed); bring a list of all medications, their purpose and who prescribed them; bring a cell phone and charger; bring phone numbers of family members for emergencies; bring a huge bottle of sanitizer to keep on the bedside table.
- Generational playgrounds! (I love this story.) In Florida, there is a playground equipped with toys for tots and those for seniors, too. While the kids are hanging from the monkey bars, grampa and gramma can ride a recumbent bicycle (stationary, of course); stretch limbs while holding a bar, climb stairs with railings, and practice all types of pushes and pulls. A partnership with KaBOOM! and Humana was the first to build the multigenerational model of playgrounds.
- Older adults in this country have a strong voice when it comes to electing members of Congress, the president and state and local leaders. The issues that most concern seniors, of course, are the future of social security and Medicare.
- AARP CEO A. Barry Rand shares a piece announcing the March 19 kick off of “You’ve Earned a Say,” a national conversation to give Americans a chance to weigh in about Social Security and Medicare. The campaign promises to be grassroots and huge — town hall meetings, community conversations, surveys, website responses, AARP mailings, etc. (For anyone in Congress who has felt the wrath and power of AARP, this is going to be a must-watch situation for the immediate future.)
- Gift cards are collecting in grampa and gramma’s wallets, and for some, they are a nuisance. The AARP Bulletin provides tips on how to turn them in to charity, trade or sell them via PlasticJungle.com, MonsterGiftCard.com, and Cardpool.com.
- A policyholder filed a class-action suit against Life Investors Insurance Company of America after they raised premiums from ~$1000 to $1900 over a three-year span (after the first 10 years’ premiums remained the same). After an appeal, once district court ruled against the policyholder, failed, the policyholders were not guaranteed a certain premium for life, but only the right to renew insurance. “There is no law that requires an insurance company to disclose its actuarial assumptions to policyholders.”
What a plethora of topics and learnings here; hope you got something out of today’s roundup, too! If there’s a source you prefer for news, let us know, and we’ll make a point to feature stories from there, too.
credit: money.cnn.com
I remember distinctly as an undergrad in the dorms at University of Wisconsin the trauma inflicted on me when people ordered pizza. Invariably, it was a bunch of guys and a few girls. We all paid the same amount, but you already know what happened to me…I got about one slice because I ate slow and those guys snarfed. I learned my lesson.
Then I got a job in Chicago and our tennis group always went out in a big crowd with drinks and food. I didn’t order the snazzy, expensive cocktails, nor did I order all the hors d’oeuvres.
A year ago, I returned to Chicago on business and had food and drink with several colleagues. My tab was $75 — I had one glass of wine and one appetizer. Hate that story.
So, you see, law students, this dilemma NEVER goes away! How do you manage the check when you’re in a business meeting, with a large crowd, with others who order what they want and expect you to pay the same?
Kiplinger’s Personal Finance had an article on etiquette of splitting the check, which I read with great hope of finding the answer. The opening salvo, however, diminished my
hopes of a solid recommendation I could use in the future…”When it comes to matters of money,” says Lisa Gerstner, the writer, “tact is often in the eye of the beholder.”
There are several caveats when determining how you’re going to handle the check prior to ordering your food:
1. If you don’t meet frequently with the people you’re dining with, a manners and lifestyle expert quoted in the article says, it’s best to split the check evenly. (Make sure you order just as much as everyone else so you don’t feel like you’re footing the bill…that’s my thought, anyway.)
2. When you frequently dine with a group of people, go ahead and split the bill evenly. Any extras should eventually be a wash, or someone will pick up more another time. What also works well is if someone treats once and the others treat another time.
3. If you go out with a group notorious for ordering fancy this and that and it’s beyond your budget, then it’s OK to ask the server for a separate check before the meal. This advice comes from Daniel Post Senning of the Emily Post Institute…(I like this counsel!).
4. Bruce MacEwen, JD, president of JD Match and founder of Adam Smith, Esq., puts it this way, “Maybe it all comes down to this: Even if a specific meal/drinks isn’t accounted for fairly, is your overall relationship with the people you’re meeting “fair” on the overall work/life level? Is it reciprocal? Are you all giving and receiving in mutually satisfactory ratios—from the larger perspective and over time? That may count more than the price tag on a glass of the house wine vs. a magnum of vintage champagne.”
When I moved to Dayton, Ohio from Chicago, I was not accustomed to the common practice of servers asking parties whether they wanted one check or two. I was offended at first, but now I’ve grown to like it because I’m responsible for what I order and the rest at the table are, too.
How’s it going for you in school? Any of these experiences ring true yet? If not, expect to encounter these situations your entire career. When the law firm or employer is not footing the bill, that’s when you need to pay attention to situations and transactions like these after coffee and dessert.
An emerging trend nationally and in Texas, specifically, is the use of forms to file for divorce by self-represented litigants. A story Feb. 24, 2012 in the Wall Street Journal details statistics and trends by county.
Divorce lawyers average $100 per hour; when families are without a job, have mouths to feed, and are absolutely certain divorce is the answer, then a lawyer is out of the question. In 2010-2011 in Austin, 56 percent of couples with children filed for divorce using forms; in Lubbock County, 78 percent of divorces without children were filed by self-represented spouses.
The economy has prompted people to turn to forms rather than use lawyers; however, the snafu in the courts becomes use of forms written for other state’s laws, forms incorrectly completed, forms without the necessary questions, or petitions without enough multiple choice or fill-in-the-blank options.
Imagine the stress on the court when a form is improper and there’s no lawyer to represent the litigant:
- Clerks are taking more calls to help people navigate the steps for self-representation
- Pro bono lawyers (there are fewer available) are busy representing indigents
- Judges aren’t supposed to assist during a hearing, yet they find themselves giving tips on what to do
- Cases endlessly float through divorce court until litigants get it right for a judgment to be made.
You can imagine the Texas Bar strongly opposes such a move. One of the women featured in the article in the paper got free help filing her divorce petition via form from a law librarian.
Is This a Possible Career for 3Ls Without a Job?
For those law students interested in family law who cannot find a job immediately out of law school, should you hang a shingle and offer divorce counsel via forms? If you’re unprepared to take a full-fledged divorce case, could you start a business helping couples navigate divorce court as a self-represented litigant?
Forms have been around for a long time for estate planning. Office supply stores have E-Z Will forms for about $5 compared to the $1,000 package starting point for many estate lawyers.
If this sounds like too much of a far-fetched concept to you, let’s look at these statistics:
- There are 36 states that already offer self-help forms for divorce filings, according to the Wall Street Journal.
- The Texas Supreme Court just finished drafts of its versions for divorce petitions with fill-in-the blanks, says the Wall Street Journal.
- The South and West had the most marriages (19 per 1,000) in 2010, but those regions also had the highest divorce rates (10 per 1,000), says The Huffington Post.
- The divorce rate varies widely; however, experts seem clear that ~45 percent of first marriages end in divorce; ~60 percent of second marriages end in divorce; and, 74 percent of third marriages end in divorce.
- Roughly 1.1 million children, or 1.5 percent of all children, lived in 2009 in the home of a parent who divorced in the previous year, according to 2009 census data from the American Community Survey.
- People are delaying marriage at all ages, and divorce is a contributing factor, along with the economy, joblessness, more opportunities for women in the job market, and other things.
If more people catch on to filing for divorce by form, then theoretically, more legal consultants would be needed to deliver advice on navigating family court. Right? Where there’s a national trend, there certainly could be jobs…share your thoughts?
Periodically we take the opportunity to survey our student members about various topics of interest, and we invariably find they have a high level of engagement with questions we’ve posed.
Our latest effort was to try to determine which specific firms, and which types of firms, our students are most interested in working for, and here are the results (yes, admittedly unscientific):
The largest slice by far was “Regional firms,” selected by 46.4% of all students (multiple choices were allowed).
Next, in order, were:
- Litigation boutiques and national/domestic US firms, tied at 29.8%
- Global elite and global other, tied at 26.2%
- DC powerhouse firms and “small” firms (< 75 lawyers), tied at 22.6%
- New York elite, at 21.4%
- IP boutiques, 16.7%
- Employment boutiques, 9.5%, and
- All other, 7.1%
Again, these figures are unscientific, but about 100 students responded and there’s no particular reason to surmise respondents were “biased” on this question vis-a-vis non-respondents, so we consider it subjectively valid.
We’re working on hypotheses to explain these preferences and have a few ideas.
But in the meantime, and at least as importantly, what, dear readers, do you think?
credit: Wall Street Journal
Imagine being a lawyer who wins a murder trial only to have a mistrial declared because a juror had been tweeting during the trial. This is happening more frequently than ever, and the future doesn’t bode well. The threat of social media has trial judges and lawyers in a tizzy. Social media has affected the jury trial in negative ways. Jurors are asked to conform to the court’s strict rulings about social media use during the trial; yet, there are breaches of conduct throughout the nation.
Lawyers are increasingly trying to catch jurors abusing the rules; when they do, a mistrial is the goal. The challenge is to pinpoint the jurors who do use social media in the evenings and call them out immediately. It’s the difference between a conviction or acquittal and tossing the case out the window as a mistrial.
A Wall Street Journal story March 6, 2012, Jurors’ Tweets Upend Trials,” featured examples of cases throughout the country where jurors’ use of social media ruined trials and cost tax payers. The Wall Street Journal showed a graph with information from the Federal Judicial Center about how 30 federal judges managed jurors caught using social media during a trial. Nine jurors were removed from the jury; eight were cautioned but allowed to remain; and, in four cases a mistrial was declared.
In thinking about the future of the jury trial and voir dire, litigators are going to need to do a better job of screening potential jurors:
- With which social media channels do you engage?
- How many followers do you have on Twitter?
- How many friends like you on Facebook?
- Do you use Pinterest? How about Google+ or LinkedIn?
- What are all your IDs for each?
- Do you have a YouTube channel and do you regularly post video?
- Are you a blogger? Do you publish content on any national portals?
- How frequently do you post content on each?
Answers to each of these questions would provide an in-depth look at the characteristics of the intended juror. If a candidate is at all savvy and shows keen ability to maneuver social media channels, then it’s likely a good idea to pass on that juror prospect.
What do you think?
The estimable Steven Harper (a former Kirkland partner and, disclosure, someone I consider a professional friend), writing at The Belly of the Beast, riffs on the recent release of the NLJ 250′s “go-to law schools,” but points out something of crucial importance not conspicuously (or at all) apparent from the initial coverage.
First, we know that in 2007 (which seems like far more than a mere five years ago) the top 20 law schools sent 55% of their grads to BigLaw; last year that was down to 36% (a decline of over one-third). But if that weren’t depressing enough, Steven writes:
As the job market for new attorneys languishes, most of last year’s 50,000 law school graduates would count those new associates as already having won a lottery. But the real story is that they have actually acquired a ticket to one or two more.
The second (or third) lotteries are, of course, the percentages who proceed to make partner, or at least non-equity partner. Here are some of the numbers for schools you’ve heard of:
- Harvard: 47 HLS grads made BigLaw partner vs. 338 HLS grads who went to BigLaw to begin with, for a batting average of about 15% (Steven uses figures from the class graduating 5 years ago, which he admits is conceptually incorrect since the path to partner is longer than that, but he argues that it’s “adequate to illustrate the point,” which I accept for purposes of the didactic point);
- Columbia: 10%
- Northwestern: 10%
- U/Penn: 8%
- U/Texas: 15%
The next question is whether the odds are getting longer, and while we don’t have hard data as such, the answer is surely yes. In the wake of the Great Reset, firms across the board have cut down on their partner ranks (equity and non-equity alike) in absolute numbers, and have:
pulled up the ladder by lengthening the equity partner track, reducing the rate of new equity partners, increasing leverage, and running their firms to maximize short-term equity partner wealth at the expense of long-run institutional stability and their colleagues’ personal well being
Almost 20 years ago the seminal Tournament of Lawyers (Marc Galanter and Thomas Palay) was published detailing how law firms had to keep growing to keep afloat financially. Steven is saying something akin to this, and the acid test of Galanter and Palay’s 1994 analysis may be on our door-step as the rising tide lifting all of BigLaw has gone out to sea and its return is nowhere to be seen.
Over at our sister site we wrote about the two, now three, lawyers behind the class action suits against law schools for consumer fraud.
Credit: Kiplinger.com
Kiplinger’s Personal Finance always offers great case studies of real people struggling through life’s financial pitfalls and decisions. Recent law school graduates are no different; in fact, their plight is riddled with twists and turns about how to save money, where and when to spend it and how much and by when student loans should be paid off.
In a March article, “Smart Ways To Manage Student Debt,” the reporter features a recent pharmacy school graduate making $100,000 annually with $120,000 in student loans.
Her plans are to purchase a home in Hawaii near family, buy a vehicle, and pay off her student loans within the 10-year timeframe. Experts in the article provide a few pointers that may also be applicable to recent law school graduates with new junior associate positions. The young woman featured in the article, 24-years-old, was concerned about her student loans. She wondered whether she should put the majority of her paycheck towards that debt, or do something else with her money.
Here are some of the tips provided by experts cited in the article:
- Build up savings as a “rainy-day fund” for just-in-case situations. Experts suggest a six-month reserve is smart (this goes for most people, actually).
- Consider certificates of deposit because they’re harder to tap for every-day expenses. If the money is in a six-month or 12-month CD (even though its return is still poor), the money is not easily accessible for a spur-of-the-moment getaway to the Cayman Islands.
- Another expert suggested long-term disability insurance to guarantee salary. This tip is something to research as there are many factors that contribute to a buy decision.
- Here’s what’s interesting…the author of the piece says “Because Caitlin has other financial goals, her student loans aren’t a priority.” Fascinating! Caitlin is paying $1400 monthly on a 10-year repayment plan. She can temporarily extend the term of debt to 25 years, and she can lower her monthly payment by as much as 50 percent. The other half of that payment can go towards goals like the house, a car, or a safety net.
- Two final tips from experts suggest about 30 percent of take-home pay be set aside in savings in addition to the full $17,000 contribution permitted in 2012 to a 401(K) account. (With matching contributions, she can save $6300 in state and federal taxes.
- The close of the article was the most important for those expecting high dollar student loans — use the same principle about student-loan repayment as mentioned above. Adjust the terms of debt so your monthly payment is manageable, and you can still put money away to tick off your goals.
Tips From Bruce MacEwen
Bruce MacEwen, Esq., president of JD Match, has some thoughts to share, too.
Bruce agrees with the experts quoted in the story and states, “This is surprisingly sound advice, but the future is uncertain and the most important asset you have is yourself, so that’s what you should invest in first.”
Bruce suggests law school graduates should max out their 401k contribution and pay off any other loans that bear a higher interest rate than student loans. If a student is very successful and later has the money to pay off student loans comfortably, while also making other higher-priority financial investment, that’s great.
On the other hand, Bruce cautions, if you decide to take lower-paying but more psychically rewarding jobs, or suffer other unanticipated setbacks, you can always resort to the federal Income-Based Repayment plan (IBR) which limits the percentage of your income you have to contribute to servicing student loan debt and ultimately forgives them whether or not they’re repaid in full.
As you graduate from law school, your resume needs to tell your story in an accurate, professional and chronological manner. Let me emphasize the importance of chronology, too; it used to be trendy to develop resumes by topic, but recruiters prefer sequential unfolding of employment history.
There are various sections recruiters expect to see on every resume and these form the foundation of the document. Other sections you might include are “value add” and help illustrate your potential within a law firm or other place of employment.
For starters, should you add an objective statement to your resume?
There are many schools of thought on whether you need that, a summary or a profile. Let’s be clear about each of these, because they are different:
- A summary statement top lines work history; no need for that as law students don’t have much.
- A profile describes the candidate with a variety of descriptors that are subjective. Recruiters gloss over that for the most part.
- An objective statement is what’s needed; it provides recruiters with a look into your future. Where do you see yourself working? In what practice area of law? For a department, firm, or in another sector? What size of firm appeals to you? Many of these questions are answered in an objective statement. Here’s an example for nobody in particular:
Seek junior associate position at (name of firm) or (size of firm) anywhere in the U.S. as a generalist. As published writer in student law journal, blogs and other legal publications, wish to contribute writing expertise in a cross-cultural team environment.
There are several schools of thought about whether to be very specific in an objective statement and tailor it directly to a firm, or whether to be broad and craft a general overview statement. For those who wish to work harder and be smarter about seeking work, tailoring each resume to a specific firm can position you as more credible than another candidate. That said, if your objective statement is general, don’t get specific about limiting yourself to a geography or practice area. There aren’t enough jobs with your specifications to be that selective.
Employers look at objective statements to help screen candidates. If a law school graduate (is still seeking a position after third year) is absolutely certain he or she knows in which area of law they want to practice, consider specifying it. This is a double-edged sword, however, so be thoughtful about it. Your expertise may be perfect as a general associate learning law firm culture and how to practice law; if you specify a type of law you prefer, then you may not be considered.
Other Sections on a Resume
Professional experience and work history are required sections. No one expects students to have lengthy professional experience, but those with internships oriented directly to the legal industry will show better than students who graduate without.
Work history is critical, and everyone job seeking needs to show how they earn money. When I interviewed for my first position, the prospective employer had never met a corn detassler. That curious job prompted him to call me (and I got the job by the way).
Community service, church service, volunteerism, mission work, or other social service engagement provides critical information to recruiters. This type of added value shows a side of a candidate not seen by grades alone.
Also consider adding your law school clubs, groups, and other organizations. Did you write for the student law journal? Do you write a blog? Did you travel abroad to learn global legal experience? What about awards?
A resume shouldn’t be a repository for every detail of your background; however, it should depict your professional achievements as you’ve journeyed through undergrad and law school. These accomplishments help differentiate you from the thousand others vying for an associate’s position in a law firm. Frivolous activities (like winning a beauty pageant, for example) are best left off a professional resume.
Once you are secure in how you present yourself on the resume, do some research about writing that cover letter. Now that’s an art form…more to come on that topic!
Over at our big brother site, Adam Smith, Esq., we just wrote about the newly-released numbers on the Class of 2011′s employment results vis-a-vis the NLJ 250.
