By now, the readers of Above The Law, chronicler of all things Biglaw, have had the time to digest the week’s news. About 828 associates and staff at large law firms learned that their services were no longer needed. It was a bloodbath for Biglaw, and the message is clear that it’s not over yet. Schadenfreude aside, it’s impossible not to sympathize with the young lawyers who thought they did everything right, only to find their world turned upside down.
But what does this mean to criminal defense lawyers, for whom this news had little direct meaning? It could mean plenty.
With law firms laying off lawyers indiscriminately, and lawyers having bills to pay and mouths to feed, one can reasonably expect them to take their framed Law Review Certificates off the wall, put on some comfortable shoes and make a clean start of it in the trenches. Why? Because their options are limited.
Most will try their hand at some variation of the law they experienced in the wood paneled libraries of their former homes, but when they find that large corporations don’t frequently shop for counsel in the back alleys off Main Street, they will come to realize that they need to adapt. The first adaptation will be that they will take any client who walks through the door. The second is that they will take whatever fee the client can afford. Hey, the ability to buy a cup-o-noodles is better than going hungry.
When Biglaw was king, meaning three months ago, a number of blawgers served as cheerleaders for the solo practitioners of the world. Some sought to make a business of it, seeing a potential niche in turning miserable associates into happy entrepreneurs. Others just sought the chance to elevate thereputation of solos for the purpose of showing that they were every bit as competent, worthy and important as the Biglaw Masters of the Universe. But it’s unlikely that anyone saw this slaughter coming, where the very foundation of belief in the indestructibility of Biglaw would be shaken to its core. What law student is prepared to sacrifice his life on the alter of Biglaw now, when the chances are slim that he’ll be around long enough to pay off his student loans?
The next step bodes poorly for criminal defense lawyers, however. As a thousand shingles will be hung come Monday, each represents another lawyer trying to take your clients. Each new solo will tell their parents and friends that they need business, and they will let others know. They will promote themselves online, and become stars on Avvo Answers. They will present themselves as your competition, even though they may lack any competence. This isn’t about competence, but about eating.
Late on Thursday, David Lat, one time Jersey AUSA cum blawging diva, twitted that he was scared by the day’s events. I asked him what was to become of all the former AUSA that used to be absorbed by Biglaw, becoming overnight defense lawyers. He never responded. But we know what will become of them. They’re going to hang out their shingle next door to you, because they can’t get a Biglaw job anymore either. How many more “former prosecutor” websites will spring up to convince defendants that buying the inside track will get them that “special deal.”
It’s long been my position that we produce far more lawyers than any society can absorb. It’s been the root cause of many problems for the profession, with lawyers debasing themselves to snare a client any way they can, and lawyers rationalizing their unprofessional conduct so they don’t have to admit that they’re debasing themselves. But expect the bad news in Biglaw to flow downhill to bad news in the trenches. Not only are they unprepared to do the work we do; not only are they hungry and desperate; not only are they full of the self-importance and arrogance bred of bonus babies fed expensive lunches, but these will be the ones who will do anything, say anything and stop at nothing in their effort to save their fortune.
Thursday was ugly at Biglaw. Monday will be ugly in the trenches. Say hi to your new colleagues.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Come Monday, it’ll be allright.
Sorry to post that twice, please punish me.
Thanks for your thoughts. I’m sorry to have made you spend the whole week’s worth in one place.
No need to. I can easily delete your second mistake of the day, and the last thing you need is further punishment, given your penchant for recidivism.
I’m of two minds on this. As a relatively new lawyer (although I’ve had my degree since 1999, I spent the few first years out of law school tilting at a windmill that ultimately kicked my ass royally, followed by the next several years living in a funk and merely dabbling in law) struggling to get by and grow my practice, I’m not crazy about the prospect of increased competition. On the other hand, I’m a hardcore principled libertarian, and see most licensure laws as a device primarily designed not to protect the consumer but to protect the incomes of the already-credentialed.
Why are so many attracted to the law, leading to our society’s production of so many (some would say too many) lawyers? A major reason is that the lawyer still has a privileged and vaunted status in society, akin to that of doctors, while the 3 year law degree is far more do-able for more people than the education required to become a doctor. What if that vaunted status conferred by merely becoming a lawyer was eliminated by eliminating the current barriers to entry? (You’ve already established on this blog that law school does almost nothing to prepare law students for the actual practice of law anyway.) The profession would undoubtedly become much less attractive to status-seekers and rent-seekers, while those who are genuinely interested in the law and have an actual talent for it would still pursue their calling on that sounder basis.
Just as in the music business (which doesn’t require a license), those of us who are especially motivated and/or talented can still rise to the top of the profession and become “stars,” commanding high fees commensurate with the value provided.
I’m also of the mind that law should be the province of the people and not of the profession. It’s a real problem when somebody without a lot of money is, for example, going through a divorce and needs representation. He or she should be able to afford such representation, but in our current system such representation can be almost or actually out of financial reach. That would be less the case if the barriers to the profession were reduced or eliminated.
As someone who has already gone through the spanking machine of law school followed by bar exam, and has literally paid my dues, it’s not in my financial interest to say to other would-be lawyers, “you don’t have to pay the same dues I did; come on in, the water’s fine.” But if I’m being principled about the question, the relevant point of time in my life to consider is not where I am now but where I was before I started law school. If I had the option then of forgoing law school, at the cost of entering the profession without the benefit of the automatic and artificial credibility and status conferred by a law degree, I would hope that I would have elected that more merit-based approach.
For the record, I think society would also benefit by tearing down the barriers to the medical profession as well, a la Milton Friedman.
In normal times, there’s a natural ebb and flow into private solo practice. But these aren’t normal times, and so many are left without options that this is going to be the only way for them to get out of the house. In normal times, some will succeed and some will fail. But these aren’t normal times, and with a sudden large influx of ill-prepared and dubiously motivated lawyers, the impact to them and to those from whom they will siphon off business may create hardships that no one imagined.
Add a whole bunch of new solos into the mix at the bottom of the food chain and something has to give.
Yeah, I agree. I was riffing on one part of your post, the observation that we produce far more lawyers than any society can absorb, and wondering whether this ironically might in part be because of the very barriers to the profession that have been erected. Your post was more about the currently pending seismic shift, within the ranks of the already-credentialed, of newly unemployed lawyers to the ranks of the hungry self-employed, and with that I mostly concur. Short-term it’s pretty scary for me personally. On the other hand, I have a philosophical bias in favor of self-employment, and would like to see more of it in society generally. The problem, which you identify, is that the kinds of work those BigLaw associates were doing is not the kind of thing they’ll generally be able to do as solos. They’re gonna cramp our style. Hopefully, though, in the long-term, if the work those associates were doing actually still needs doing by somebody, things might even out eventually.
Interesting post, if I may say so. The big City law firms in London are laying staff off with (as I never tire of saying) the enthusiasm of a hungry rice farmer in a padi field – yet our law schools continue to take more and more law students on to do law degrees and then the one year legal practice course or Bar Vocational Course.
The cull isn’t limited to associates. Magic Circle and Big London and regional firms are looking at partners – taking the advice, possibly, of McEwan on Adam Smith Esq.
The *Cull is going to have a knock on effect on billing (price her hour or flat fee)
It is unlikely that associates or partners from City / Commercial firms (Your equivalent of BigLaw) will be able to adapat quickly to solo practice in the UK for the very simple reason (a) they do not have that training or experience and (b) may not have the ability (financial or otherwise) to run all the commercial trappings of a solo practice.
Barristers are used to solo practice, albeit sharing expenses through Chambers – but this is not the case for associates or partners from larger firms used to team work and a ‘corporate’ culture and infrastructure.
Blood on the wall? yes… i think so. I can’t speak for the US – but, fortunately, I don’t need to – you and others make the point brutally and honestly.
“Time for Change”… anyone?
It’s not easy to keep revenues up at law school to pay those professor/dean salaries. You need a lot of students, year after year.
You make a very interesting point about biglaw no longer being able to absorb former AUSAs. Still, I am not so sure how many will leave their positions now to find jobs – presumably, most move to biglaw to cash out – and while many solos do well, it could still take some time for a former AUSA to start matching his/her former salary (a local prosecutor might be different, but AUSA salaries for some levels, plus cost differential can be a reasonable income)
I have no idea where all of these displaced lawyers will go. I do think some will find their way in solo practice but I also think that for many, solo is still regarded as a second tier job. I spoke at an alumni event a few months back on options for women in the law and after the in-house option, most of the participants were most interested in speaking to the party planner on the panel, who’d formerly been at biglaw, then took time off for kids and switched careers. I think we’ll see more departures from the law than new solos – which I actually think is a shame because while there are plenty of dimwits at biglaw, there’s a lot of talent as well.
Thanks Carolyn. I have no idea which way the trend will go, and I’m not sure what former AUSAs will do if they can’t cash out. If large blocks of lawyers move out of the profession, my guess is everyone will be happier. Now if we just get law school to stop making too many new ones…
A lot worse things could happen to the “average” consumer of legal services than having a lot of bright, hungry young lawyers decide to hang out shingles or join small “Main Street” firms that handle the every-day legal issues of ordinary Americans. Despite the vanity or self-delusion of many members of the bar, there is not much that most SmallLaw attorneys do that cannot be learned quickly by such lawyers — especially when they will most likely be under-employed at first, and therefore able to do the work it takes to get up to speed on a need-to-know basis. As a bonus, many of those “let go” may not only come to value every client, but might just discover a far more rewarding way to use their law licenses.
Also, it might indeed be very good for consumers to have some real price competition for a change in our profession. Those who believe that what their services are “worth” (their “value”) is somehow immutable and not a function of how many providers are looking for buyers will hopefully get an economics lesson, as well as a spur to increase the quality of their services and the options offered clients.
Yep. BigLaw’s cull lawyer can, if he must, learn quickly to do everything I do, just like I learned quickly. Cross-examination? There are books about that. Jury selection? Copy someone else’s list of voir dire questions. Jury argument? I’ve got a tape of Gerry Spence around here somewhere.
We see it down at the criminal courthouse every day: lawyers who think they can get by on what they learned in law school and a “go-by” cheat sheet.
Learning to do it right, however, is a different matter. The cull can spend the rest of his life either (a) studying and practicing, perfecting his art; or (b) doing it wrong.
Experience matters. This is not vanity; to the contrary, it’s humility. It’s 14 years of experience, getting my ass kicked less and less each year. It’s the recognition that, while I am a much better lawyer in 2009 than I was in 1995, I’ll be vastly better (if I’m allowed to continue practicing) in 2023.
If this guy is really a law prof, one of the most protected and useless functions in society, it’s funny that he talks so cavalierly about “price competition” in “our profession.” He’s not part of our profession. He’s a law prof. He’s part of the problem rather than part of the solution. If these bright, hungry young lawyers can quickly learn to do what the typical solo does, it’s not because of anything the law prof taught them. It’s because they were bright to begin with. Not that being bright is enough to be a good lawyer. You also have to have guts and passion.
But perhaps I’m being too harsh on this law prof. He recognizes that solo practice may be a “far more rewarding way” to use a law license than wasting away amorally in BigLaw for a nice fat salary. If he’s smart enough to recognize this, why doesn’t he give up his useless job as a law prof, and actually practice law for a change?
Don’t be so harsh on the old Professor. First, he’s very, very old. He practiced law for many years, and only turned to teaching when his gnarled old body became feeble and he was no longer up to the rigors of the courtroom. Second, his physical dimunition notwithstanding, he still packs quite a powerful intellectual roundhouse punch when necessary. In a battle of wits, you may find yourself unarmed.
Your last paragraph is a keeper. How did you find time to read and comment while perfecting BR # 199?
You call Lat a blawging diva?
Why? What have you got against the guy?
Nah, we’re friendly. It’s just some good natured ribbing.
If I’d been more awake, I might have added that in order to learn to do what I do, the cull lawyer would have to first admit that he doesn’t know what he’s doing. Which is one of your points.
I love the “cull lawyer” too. It’s amazing how you constantly come up with these names.
I see upon clicking on “Prof. Yabut’s” hypertext link that this is a nom de plume, and that this guy has indeed practiced plenty of law. It’s not clear from his blog that he’s in fact a prof, though I assume he is because the blog is under the harvard.edu URL.
I don’t really have anything against law profs. Seems like it’d be a cushy and fun job. But the commenter’s perceived callousness towards the economic realities lawyers face as a result of law school debt and law schools churning out so many new law degrees year after year, combined with the implication that what SmallLaw lawyers do isn’t all that difficult (if that’s true, why did we have to subsidize law prof salaries for those three years of law school in order to do it?), just rubbed me the wrong way coming from a law prof.
I chalk my overreactive incivility up to CWI.
Not only were you subsidizing law prof. salaries, if you didn’t go to a top 25 or so school or one attached to a large university, you were probably subsidizing the main university as well. Small to medium-sized schools with a law school look at it as a cash cow and do everything they can to grab as much of law school revenue as they can get away with. That’s why there are so many law schools. Deans have historically been able to limit some of it by pointing to some of the sections of the ABA standards, but it still happens and is probably getting worse at a lot of schools.
I’m expecting the high losses of BigLaw jobs to deter new students and likely lead to some schools closing. This, in the big picture for the profession, is probably a good thing.