When Choosing a Law School, Think Regionally!

One sound bite I use a lot when counseling prospective law students is to "put the end at the beginning." Before thinking about program specialties and clinical opportunities and academic profiles and acceptances rates and anything else that might determine your selection of law schools to which you will apply, think about the end game. Picture graduating, taking the bar, and going off to work. Seriously, do it, even if it feels weird.

The reason it might feel weird is because the law school process is very insular, especially compared to other graduate professional programs like medical school and business school. Just look at the applications: MBA and MD programs ask students specifically about their career goals and prospects, while law schools simply present a personal statement that allows you to write about whatever you want (and in most cases, you should be writing about something besides career goals). Even the process by which law schools admit students is focused entirely on what will make for a good law student - almost no thought is given to whether the candidate will make for a good lawyer one day. So law school applicants can be forgiven when they lose sight of the end game (the legal profession), choosing instead to focus entirely on the law school part of the equation.

Part of putting the end at the beginning is understanding career prospects and the recruitment process that while occur while in school. Law school is very hierarchical in the sense that attending a top school can lead to an easier path to prestigious job opportunities. Attending a truly elite school can often take some of the pressure off of finding a BigLaw job and it has the added benefit of creating a truly national job search. Virtually everyone attends on campus interviewing processes at programs like Harvard, Columbia, and Chicago, and while some firms are cutting back on their level of recruitment, graduates of elite institutes can still expect to meet with recruiters from law firms based all over. A Chicago grad will not only receive the opportunity to meet with Chicago-based firms, but also firms based in other cities, major market branches, and even satellite offices. When I interviewed during OCI (on campus interviewing) at Chicago in the fall of 2005, over 25 L.A. firms were on the docket.

However, the harsh reality is that most law students will not have the chance to attend a top five, ten, or even "T-14" law school and the even harsher reality is that the current legal recruiting climate is narrowing the options available to students and graduates. All of which puts a premium on planning ahead and thinking about which city you want to work in when you graduate. If you can't go to one of the truly national law schools (a group that is growing smaller every year), then you simply have to consider the regional recruiting implications of your school selection process. Emory is a fine law school but you won't find 25 firms from Los Angeles on campus for recruiting and you won't even find that many from New York. D.C., sure, but expect a heavy dose of Atlanta. Students at Texas can expect to see a lot of firms from Texas. George Washington grads are going to get most of their offers from D.C. area firms. This is just the way things tend to work when the job search becomes more regional in nature.

Once students understand this basic consideration, the next question becomes obvious: "What region of the country do I want to live and work in?" For many, the answer is easy - they want to be close to family, to return to their roots, be near a spouse's job, and so on. For other students, however, the possibilities are endless. They can and will go anywhere for the "right" opportunity. Usually, that means going to the school they perceive to be the best. However, let me offer another regional consideration, one that puts the end at the beginning: think about the value of law firm employment.

Assuming you go on to study law at a regional school, have access to regional recruiters, and land a job with a law firm in that region, you are going to be looking at some basic factors that speak to the value of that work experience. For instance, practicing law in New York is known to pay the biggest bonuses, but also demand (often by far) the longest hours. It is not uncommon to hear of junior associates billing 2,400 hours a year. And while the bonuses may be bigger in the Big Apple, the base salaries are often similar to those in other major markets. Consider that cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and D.C. all pay "New York salaries" yet have cultures with lower billable hours. There are certainly still sweatshops in those cities and you must pick a firm carefully, but billing a lot of hours in L.A. or Chicago looks more like 2,100 than 2,400. And the pay is just about the same. So those cities start to look pretty good. And to take it a step further, you can easily research cost of living and see that Chicago is an absolute steal compared to Los Angeles (and, of course, New York).

So if you are a law school applicant considering "regional" schools in New York, L.A., and Chicago, you also want to consider the value of your job when you graduate. For pure return on investment, Chicago blows the other two cities out of the water. This analysis also extends to somewhat smaller markets like Portland, Dallas, and Denver - firms don't pay quite the same salaries, but the billable hour requirements are usually far lower and the cost of living is a fraction of the bigger markets.

Obviously, the ability to secure employment in the first place and to do so at a firm that allows for interesting work and a good environment for professional development is all necessary for any sort of value calculation to do any good. But when you are looking at regions of the country to practice law, don't just think about the schools themselves or which city you might want to live in for three years - really think long and hard about where you can get the most value out of your legal practice once you graduate. Where you go geographically will make all the difference when it comes to maximizing the return on your significant investment.

Adam Hoff is the Director of Admissions Consulting and Research at Veritas Prep. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School and Pepperdine University, where he served as the Associate Director of Admissions. Adam oversees Veritas Prep’s law school admissions consulting services to ensure that Veritas Prep clients are successfully poised for admission to their select law schools. You can hear more from Adam on strategic tips for your law school application in the Law School Podcaster episodes, Law School Application Strategy: What You Can Do Now To Help You Get Accepted and "Law School Personal Statements and Letters of Recommendation: Where to Begin?"

Optimistic Outlook for In-House Hiring of Lawyers

The Wall Street Journal Law Blog reports on "a breath of spring in a job market that’s been wintry for far too long." Given our recent post documenting the latest dismal numbers for law firm hiring of law students, it's refreshing to hear from the Association of Corporate Counsel’s (ACC) 10th Annual Chief Legal Officer Survey that things seem to be looking up for hiring of in-house lawyers.

According to the ACC survey, the outlook for Chief Legal Officers is showing signs of optimism, with increased job satisfaction and internal hiring plans for 2010.

Some key points to note from the survey:

• Uptick in hiring/staffing: There was a greater focus on internal hiring in legal departments, as well as an increase in corporate attorneys outside the U.S. Despite the recession, more than a quarter (29%) of the respondents plan to hire staff for their in-house legal departments in 2010,up from 23% who had hiring plans in last year’s survey.

• Job satisfaction is strong: Even with increased scrutiny and expanded duties, an overwhelming majority of respondents (91%) reported they are still satisfied with their chosen career, up from 88% in 2008.

• Increase in workload, demand for alternative fees and decrease in outside counsel work: Even with this uptick in staffing, the recession has impacted legal departments’ workload, budget and outside counsel spend. More than one-third (34%) of respondents reported a cut in spending on outside counsel, and those who did employ outside counsel used more alternative fee arrangements. (Of course, the downside is that this could mean less work for law firms, and fewer jobs for lawyers and law students at those firms).

While the optimistic outlook for hiring of in-house lawyers is a bright spot on the legal employment horizon, Ashby Jones, Lead Writer of The Wall Street Journal Law Blog notes in his post that, "of course, this doesn’t mean that the floodgates have opened. Nor does it mean that in-house jobs are going to be easy to get."

The increase in in-house hires may just be a glimmer of hope or it could be more of a restructuring caused by the recession, as suggested by ACC deputy general counsel, James Merklinger. Merklinger says in a recent post on Corporate Counsel: "The added hiring most suggests that the recession is forcing chief legal officers to change the way they operate. They're bringing more work in-house, spending less on outside counsel, and boosting spending on alternative fee arrangements, the survey shows."

Still, someone has to get those in-house jobs, right?

Ashby Jones of The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog was a guest on a recent Law School Podcaster segment, “The Current Economic Environment: What It Means for Law School Applicants and Students.” Check out the full show to hear more on this topic.

Baby, It's Cold Out There! Law Firms Respond to Proposed Changes in Recruiting at Law Schools

Change does not come easily to the citizens of Law Firm Land. Witness the tepid reaction, if not downright frigid, by some big law firms to the National Association of Law Placement (NALP) Report's (pdf) recommendation to move the period when offers are extended to law students to January, five months after on-campus interviews.

For those not yet familiar with the acronym from the on-campus interviewing (OCI) experience, NALP is the national organization of law schools and employers that, among other things, sets guidelines on the annual on-campus interview season, and determines how long students can hold onto a job offer before making a decision. Tradition is king here -- the process has remained pretty much the same for 40 years, with law firms recruiting on campus in the fall and making offers shortly thereafter.

The recent NALP Commission and subsequent Report (see our earlier post detailing the Report's recommendations) came as a result of the recession, where law firms found themselves overstaffed and forced to lay off hundreds of lawyers in New York and nationwide, and delayed by up to one year the first-year start dates.

Jones Day was an early critic of the plan for an “offer kick-off day” in mid-January during students’ second year of law school and now has offered more details in a critique (PDF) on its website that says the plan is an anticompetitive “radical restructuring” of the recruitment process.

NALP solicited comments to the recommendations in the Report and they are hearing back from member law firms and law schools. According to Jim Leipold, executive director at NALP, "almost universally people felt a January kick-off date was too late." The biggest issue? Recruiting officials at firms have expressed concerned that a January "offer kick-off day" will create a prolonged recruiting season with law firms spending nearly half a year wining and dining top students.

Leipold told the New York Law Journal, reaction to its proposals among the schools and firms is "mixed." NALP is reviewing feedback from more than 825 members, including more than 125 written comments.

NALP's Jim Leipold was a guest on Law School Podcaster's segment, "The Current Economic Environment: What It Means for Law School Applicants & Students." Tune into the full show to hear more on this topic.