Do we all really have to be lawyers?

I recently received an interesting question from one of my 2L colleagues: "Do I really want or need to practice law?" Naturally, the first thing that came out of my mouth, "Why on earth would you have spent so much time going through the essential motions only to end up doing something else?" But, upon further reflection, I realize that I may have been slightly narrow-minded. Maybe law students, particularly those who come into law school just because it is the "next best thing to do," need a greater amount of guidance from career counseling offices to navigate the ever-changing and dramatically complex job landscape. Let me explain.

First, there are other "career options" that are quite obvious--eg, public service, non-legal advocacy work, etc. It is obviously not uncommon for politicians to be lawyers, for example (our president is one). But there are many non-obvious career paths for someone who has gone through the intellectual quest that is law school, and in my mind, career services offices ought to expand their knowledge of these areas in order to help students. For instance, one might consider business or entrepreneurship. I did a fairly quick google search for what appears to be dozens of available positions in this field, many of which do not require any special degree other than "some graduate level work." Why aren't students looking at these jobs?

I understand the position of others (including some who write for this blog) who opine that law schools should attempt to narrow the field of applicants, and tailor curriculum in a manner sufficient to more adequately prepare students for legal practice. All other things equal, I would agree. But legal education is a business (a big business) that is expanding and not going away any time soon. It is driven by rankings, and powered by the federal government's continual willingness to foot the bill for thousands of students who have about as much a chance of paying it back within three decades as Gigli does of becoming a cult classic.

So why not change the approach? A J.D. should be a general degree like an MBA, and schools should try to incorporate a wider cross-disclipinary focus into the basic curriculum. Good idea? Mabye, maybe not? Let's hear your thoughts.

2009/2010/2011 BigLaw Class Years: The Gilded Ones?

Look around your law school campus and you will see the carnage left behind by the financial crisis. Classes of 2009/2010/2011 are left jobless and debt ridden. Among the detritus scattered around campus, however, there are the lucky few who have successfully secured gainful employment at some of the nation’s premier firms. It is my belief that these “survivors” of sorts are poised to have the most market (and hence financial) leverage in the medium- and long-term. There are two phenomena that support my assertion: 1) the seemingly unmovable law firm profit model; and 2) demographic destiny.

First, to quote Mark Twain, the reports of the BigLaw model’s death are greatly exaggerated. While some firms have moved away from traditional lock-step compensation systems and have outsourced the more mundane portions of their work, the fundamental premise of their business depends on starting large classes of associates at the bottom of the pyramid and slowly winnowing them out either via voluntary or forced attrition before they reach the top layers. Many of the survivors of this process who end up at the top of this pyramid are compensated with a consecrated slice of the partnership pie. So how does this ancient and seemingly indestructible profit model help the lucky few who landed summer associate positions? Simple. Supply and demand.

These lucky few will ultimately succumb to the same pressures experienced by any other BigLaw class year. Some will leave for government, some for mid-size/small law, and some will just leave the law period. This inevitable thinning of the 2009/2010/2011 class years will create an abnormally small layer in the BigLaw pyramid relative to the size of the firms’ respective partnerships. Ultimately, when the economy turns around (yes, one day it will be better; even the Great Depression came to an end after all), BigLaw will have more work than mid-level associates to do it. The result of this excess work and limited supply of experienced attorneys means that there could very well be a financial war between firms for mid-level attorneys. BigLaw firms will be unable to fill these voids in their ranks with attorneys from small/mid-sized law firms and the government because they will simply not have the requisite experience to do the work.

Second, viewing the future with more of a long-term lens, old partners, particularly baby boomers, have to retire at some point. Whether by “age-out” clauses in partnership agreements or simply by partners deciding that they have hit the end of the line, there is a large generation of law firm partners who will be heading for greener pastures in the next decade or so. The generations immediately behind them, particularly Generation X and the Millennials, are quite a bit smaller than their baby boomer predecessors. Come time for partnership promotions, there might very well be a shortfall in available talent to take up the reins of the firm; particularly, a shortfall in talent around the time the 2009/2010/2011 classes are up for partner. Those who make through the eight to ten years of hoops stand (I think) a much improved chance for partner compared to their boomer and Generation X peers.

So what’s the conclusion? Those in the Classes of 2009/2010/2011 who are/were able to obtain a BigLaw position may have some serious market power behind them in the medium- and long-term. So long as these individuals can wade through the next two to three years of economic waters, they stand an excellent chance to develop a skill set that will be in high demand during the medium term (i.e., during their mid-level years) due to limited supply. Further, any members of these Classes who manage to survive eight to ten years in their firms also stand an excellent chance of making partner due to demographic pressures on the boomers.

Obviously this is all just speculation. Should the overall size of BigLaw shrink my predictions will not hold. However, given the ever increasing levels of regulation coming out of Washington, I believe that there may just be an enormous opportunity for these lucky few.

Posner on the Legal Profession

No longer a gentlemanly cartel? The legal profession is morphing, says Judge Posner at The University of Chicago Law School's commencement speech last June. I realize that this might be old news, but I just ran across it recently, and thought it would interest our readers.

Cheers!

2,000 Legal Jobs Lost

From Law.com:

According to a monthly jobs report released Friday by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the nation lost 263,000 jobs in September as the unemployment rate reached 9.8 percent, the highest in 26 years.

The legal sector wasn't spared. When the data is seasonally adjusted, the sector shed another 2,000 jobs. When not seasonally adjusted, the legal industry lost 13,600 jobs, likely a result of the conclusion of most summer associate programs and the return of students to their law schools.

Click here for the article.

OCI (Unsurprisingly) Bleak at Top Schools . . . Like Harvard

According to Law.com:

Think you've got it tough? You could be a student at Harvard Law School, where big firm recruitment is down 20 percent, the Harvard Crimson reports. . . . HLS administrators and experts hinted to the Crimson that the school might push back the start of its fall recruiting season. And starting this spring, HLS will host
a second recruitment period for "firms whose outlooks have changed" in anticipation of an economic recovery.

A second recruitment period at Harvard? Man, these are weird times.

Are Law Schools Overreacting to the Annual Exodus of Students? (UPDATE)

Yesterday, I asked whether law schools were overreacting to the difficulties posed by increased transfer admissions. In particular, I reported a tipster's account of the administrative response to the transfer process undertaken by Brooklyn Law School; an account which was, as noted, corroborated by other former Brooklyn Law School students who had transferred after their first year.

Although I encouraged readers to not single out Brooklyn Law School, the story predictably generated much controversy and--in some cases--anger. I promised to provide an update in the event I was contacted by the school's administration and am pleased to do so now, having received the following e-mail communication from Associate Dean Beryl Jones-Woodin:

1) You report that we actively seek to encourage students who are considering transferring to remain at Brooklyn Law School. This is accurate. We are proud of the education we provide our students and are enthusiastic about the students we have admitted. We want to encourage them to remain as members of our community.

2) We do not prevent students who are thinking of transferring from using the services of our Career Center. They are barred from using these services only after they transfer.

3) Students who have been selected for a journal or for the Moot Court Honor Society do not lose their positions until they have notified us that they will definitely be transferring to another school.

4) We do discourage faculty members from writing clerkship letters of recommendations for students who have transferred to other schools because we believe that our faculty members’ primary responsibilities are to our students who are seeking the same positions. Students who are attending other law schools can secure recommendations from their professors at their new schools. Faculty members may nevertheless write letters if they wish.

We are grateful for Dean Jones-Woodin's response; her willingness to address our story and set the record straight speaks very well for the school.

Given the array of sources who indicated that Brooklyn had a categorical rule against allowing former transfer students to use Brooklyn faculty as references for clerkship applications, I followed up to inquire as to whether the recommendation policy she described in her message had recently been changed. I have yet to hear back, and will update this posting when I do. Regardless, I am sure this policy will be very welcome news to former Brooklyn transfers who are currently contemplating applying for a clerkship next fall; "discourag[ing] faculty members from writing clerkship letters" is a lot better than "prohibiting" them from doing so.

------

UPDATE (Apr. 7, 6:00 PM): Dean Jones-Woodin has confirmed that it has "always been [Brooklyn's] policy to discourage, but ultimately allow, faculty members to write in support of clerkship candidates who transfer."

Are Law Schools Overreacting to the Annual Exodus of Students?

With spring semester drawing to a rapid close, law students across the country are contemplating transferring. There are plenty of reasons to transfer, and it is an option many students consider. The increased popularity of transferring has brought with it a corresponding increase in incoming transfer classes, along with vigorous efforts to successfully integrate incoming transfers into the existing law school class.

But it has also brought about some less-than-welcoming reactions from schools unwilling to lose their students to the transfer process. A few weeks ago, Above the Law reported that Loyola (L.A.) Law School was barring potential transfers from participating in the school's on campus interview program. We've heard rumblings of similar tactics being used at other schools--the apparent goal being to convince students to stay put. As a tipster who transferred from Brooklyn Law School tells it, for example, the "efforts" began shortly after requesting a transcript even though the school was never expressly apprised of any transfer plans:

They told me . . . they would mail all my OCI firms saying that I would not be interviewing there any more and wouldn't tell them where I transferred. They also threatened me with the writing competition and my moot court saying that they may not be able to hold a spot for me as long as I'm transferring.

The (threatened) adverse consequences extended far beyond the short-term, however. According to our tipster, Brooklyn Law School's administration used an additional ploy that they have since made good on:

They specifically told me they will not let any professor give me a letter of recommendation for clerkships, [pursuant to] school policy [and] used this as a threat to get me not to transfer.

Our tipster's story has been confirmed by other former Brooklyn Law School students. I attempted to contact Brooklyn Law School to inquire as to whether the policy our tipster described remains in effect, and will update this posting later in the day should I hear back.

While I cannot fault schools for calculatedly choosing to devote school resources to students who continue to be paying customers, I have to wonder whether such tactics are truly necessary. Are law schools overreacting to the problems posed by increased transfer admissions?

------

UPDATE (Apr. 7, 4:30 PM): I have posted an update to this story here.

Open Thread: Student Debt and Tax Credits

On March 9, Craig opened a successful thread allowing students to discuss the idea of whether the federal government should, in addition to giving trillions of dollar in bailout money to other industry actors, forgive student loan debt. Absent the obvious moral hazard implications noted in the commentary of that thread, the idea was quite popular. Indeed, we even had the privilege of having Rob Applebaum, the creator of the Facebook group that started it all--and, unsurprisingly, that has now been featured on CNN and the Huffington Post--answer our readers' questions, and discuss the merits of his proposal. We have received numerous requests for a follow-up. So, here we go.

I spoke with one of our readers who suggested a new related idea for discussion on the matter of providing some relief to students with loan debt: namely, whether providing tax benefits for paying back student loans is a technically feasible and desirable policy in our current economic climate. Specifically, he noted that the government should consider:

making paying back an educational loan like contributing to a 401k for tax purposes . . . [This] should make sense.  Any money you put into the loan payback is typically untaxed and not included in your salary.

Our reader considered this idea:

ever since President Obama started discussing higher taxes on salaries while running for President.  [He] figured that it just did not make sense for graduates with huge loans.  They should be able to pay off all of their loans before being taxed at such a high rate.

Accordingly, this proposal should be considered in the context of graduate students who can be expected to earn taxable income over the level at which President Obama has proposed to raise the marginal rates.

Thoughts?

--------

See The Wallet Pop Blog for a discussion of a similar idea

Open Thread: Safe Job Choices?

It is easy to feel dejected as a law student these days—the 1Ls are getting shut out in their summer job hunt, the 2Ls are fearful of failing to obtain a full-time job offer, and 3Ls are facing offer revocation and deferred start dates. To make matters worse, even clerks are struggling in this economy.

While I do think Josh’s earlier article makes a good argument for the fact that we, as a group, tend to overreact to market trends, times are clearly bad (albeit, perhaps improving). Many of our readers have asked us to address what avenues of employment are safe in this economy. The easy—albeit disappointing—answer may well be that there are none. But we did some rudimentary research, and were prepared to write a segment featuring secondary markets as the route for wistful 1Ls gearing up for fall OCI.

There are, after all, good reasons to believe secondary market firms would be safer in a volatile economy. Featuring lower billable rates, clients looking to cut back on expenses could actively seek out such firms. Interestingly, though, other outlets have reported mass layoffs at secondary market firms. And, perhaps more onerously, we have heard that at least one Midwestern firm has recently cut associate salaries by $15,000 per year.

So, frankly, we just don't know what to think anymore. Were we wrong to assume that there may be safer "regions" as opposed to "practice areas?" Are our profession's woes extended across America? Across all types of firms? We turn to our readers to weigh in on these questions.

----------

UPDATE (3:54 PM): We've received some e-mails noting, quite correctly, that our statement regarding 2Ls being "fearful of failing to obtain a full-time job offer" suggests that all 2Ls have summer jobs lined up in the first instance. Implying as much was not our intention, and we apologize if this somehow sounded insensitive. We realize there are many 2Ls still looking for jobs in this tough economy, and are cognizant of how lucky those of us who have secured summer employment truly are.

New York to 190K?

We are pleased to confirm reports that several New York law firms will be raising first year salaries to $190,000 per year. A spokesperson for one of the firms reports “the move is necessary to draw top law students to this expensive city.” We expect, however, that this change in salary will eventually permeate all major legal markets. It’s time for law students nationwide to rejoice. Take out a few more grand in student loans. Buy yourself some expensive clothes. Book an exotic vacation. Times are good!

Unless you’re drinking the (spiked) kool-aid, you know the preceding paragraph was entirely facetious; I apologize for toying with your emotions. The bottom line is this wouldn’t have seemed so far fetched a year or two ago. In fact, such news was even expected within our legal bubble. Try telling a first year today that firms are raising salaries and they’ll have you committed to a mental asylum faster than the next batch of associates are laid off.

Sure enough, while cleaning out my e-mail’s in-box, I came across a message that a friend and fellow law student sent me during my first semester of law school. He wrote, “Just so you know, we’re not doing this for naught,” and then linked to an article. Ah, to be a 1L again...it feels like a lifetime ago. I mean, I really had no recollection of this e-mail at all. And then I clicked the link: surprise, surprise! Optimism abounds! The article matter-of-factly asserts that “the question isn’t so much whether some New York City firms will up the ante again, but when” and explains that “[a]nother round of raises is inevitable.” Perhaps first semester of law school was another lifetime, metaphorically speaking, anyway.

I find it rather humorous (and a bit embarrassing) that the legal community legitimately believed that BigLaw salaries were going to rise to $190,000; that it was, in essence, a fait accompli. The economic recession that our nation is currently steeped in didn’t come out of nowhere. Granted, it wasn’t reasonable to expect a financial collapse of such epic proportions, but the market wasn’t exactly stable either.

What triggered this unrealistic assumption that salaries would rise (and rise, and rise, and rise….)? Perhaps the belief that salaries would increase stems from a sense of entitlement. Maybe the belief was caused by the insurmountable debt of law students. I can’t say for sure one way or another, but I have a hunch. In the sage words of Billy Joel, I—like everyone else in the legal world—“go to extremes.” Maybe it’s part of the law school mentality.

When times are good, the legal community basks in its greatness and expects there to be a never ending pool of wealth. Our unwarranted optimism is surpassed by only Wall Street. But, when things take a turn for the worst, the legal community is also only surpassed by Wall Street with the pessimism and panic that ensues. There just “ain’t no in between.”

So what can we learn from this? I think that, just as the contention that firms would raise salaries to 190K was unnecessarily optimistic, the word on the street that BigLaw is dying is unnecessarily pessimistic. Let’s face it: the legal community doesn’t handle highs and lows very well. Make sure to remember this before making any drastic decisions about your future in the profession.

Note to 1Ls: Quit Complaining

Ah…first years. Craig's article below triggered a memory from this fall semester. It was mid October and Fall Recruiting was grinding to a halt. As I closed in on accepting an offer for summer employment, I thought it'd be a wise move to run everything by a career counselor. Judging by the line, it looked as though many others had the same idea.

"Can I help you?" asked the receptionist to the person at the head of the line.

"Yes. I'd like to make an appointment for early November," the student nervously responded.

"What year are you?"

"I'm a first year," the student answered.

The student must be lost, I surmised, thinking he had accidently stumbled into the CDO looking for the fabled rooftop swimming pool. The receptionist would surely correct him and send his dejected soul back to the library.

"And this concerns what?"

"Summer employment," the first year announced.

Summer employment? Clearly, I thought, this must be the class gunner. Gotta get a leg up on the rest of the class, right? There's always one of 'em. But to my astonishment this series of questions and answers continued through the line until I finally made it to the front.

I didn't know what to think. Are all first years this annoying…er, ambitious? Was I like this as a first year? Well, I'm currently writing as a contributing editor to a legal blog, so I suppose I must have been.

But, nonetheless, I couldn't help but be frustrated. Fall recruitment wasn't kind. I know of many exceptionally intelligent law students who were left disappointed. They deserved better, but this economy simply chewed them up and spit them out. And yet these first year law students, who weren't much beyond learning how to tie their shoelaces, were gunning for firm jobs? It just seemed preposterous.

I realize Craig's article focused on summer employment in general and was not limited to summer associate positions. Nonetheless, securing a firm job certainly seems to be the main focus for many first years. Apparently (and unsurprisingly) there are many who, despite donning their finest Brooks Brothers suits and splurging on the fanciest of resume paper, failed to secure a summer associate position. Hey, everyone can't be "nervous t-10 1L" of the Above The Law fame.

So, what are they to do? Crawl into the fetal position and hope for the best? Personally, I think any 1L upset that they were unable to procure a summer associate position needs to step back and put things in perspective. Quit complaining and be proactive. Judging from recent events, a coveted firm job might not be waiting for you next summer, let alone this one.

Be willing to work for…here it comes, get ready for it…FREE. Land a judicial internship. Work for the DOJ. Research for a professor. You'll find something. It's all about getting the experience. Write. Research. Watch a trial. Learn. Make yourself as marketable as possible.

I propose that you focus on three goals for the summer. First, produce a top notch memorandum/brief that will make a strong writing sample for you to use in fall recruitment. Second, make sure to network. Form at least one connection with an attorney who is willing to act as a mentor and as a reference. And, lastly, make sure to have some fun. Find interesting work that you enjoy. Stop stressing out, and relax. It's the summer we’re talking about here!

Reports from the battlefield: the fight for 1L jobs

My 1L job search was a pretty mundane experience: I sent out resumes and went on some interviews. I did my best, and was never concerned about being unable to find a job. Naturally, I had doubts about whether I would get offers with my first choice employers, but I ultimately knew there would be something waiting for me at the end of the process. If nothing else, I knew I could at least rack up a collection of cool trinkets from my travels. My nostalgia abounds thinking of the good ol' "hustle-less" days. Boy, have things changed.

In the midst of a floundering legal market, 1Ls seem far less optimistic about their job prospects as they interview for summer positions this year. As anxiety increases, so too--inevitably--does the competition. Don't believe me? Listen to what one tipster from "the" collegial law school has to say:

As a 1L, I don't know what the job search has been like in previous years, but it is definitely intense this season. Our OCI schedule included like 3 firms, some of which interviewed 30 students for one SA spot. Even though everyone goes out of their way to avoid looking like a gunner in class, it's unabashed gunnerism when it comes to the job search. All anyone wants to talk about is jobs, and people are just desperate to get an edge.

But how far are desperate 1Ls really willing to go? As the tipster reports:

During an interview, a partner asked me about my favorite TV shows. Not wanting to admit to the trash I really watch in my free time, I randomly named a show that seemed a little more in line with what a law student should be watching. Unfortunately, it was the guy's favorite show, and I had actually never seen it. I pulled off a several minute long conversation about the show based on what I'd seen in previews and hearing my friends talking about it.

Unfortunately, the tipster didn't mention what the more "lawyerly" show was, but we're guessing it was Law & Order or Shark. Apparently, other students were even willing to undertake more extreme measures to bolster their job prospects. As the tipster went on to say:

Other 1Ls are going just as far. I know a guy that lied about being engaged so that he would have a "legitimate" tie to the area to impress a local firm.

The times are surely a-changin. But how bad could things really get? We shamelessly admit we want to know more. Much more. Share your stories, and things can get interesting...

The misguided emphasis on 1L grades?

“All that stuff about grades is true. You gotta work like hell. No kidding. No one jokes about grades. I mean try getting a job without them. It’s all stacked against you if you don’t have the grades.”
-The Paper Chase

Sage words from Mr. Hart’s Resident Assistant—in law school grades are everything when it comes to jobs. The system is fairly simple: employers have grade cut offs based on the candidate’s school, and make threshold hiring decisions by weeding out those who do not “make the grade” (pun intended).

Of course, the system does not care about all grades—the premium is placed (almost) exclusively on 1L grades. At least in the law firm context, interviewing for coveted “summer associate” positions takes place in the fall of 2L year, comfortably before any 2L or 3L grades are accessible to employers. Permanent offers, at least before the economy collapsed, have generally been a sure thing. At worst, summers could ensure they snagged a post-graduation job by producing good work product during the extended interview that “summering” at a firm fundamentally is.

So 1L year has been, and remains, the most important year of law school as far as employment prospects are concerned. Those who escape “1 Hell” unscathed have their pick of firms, while the lower end of the curve scrounges to get a job; a feat that, depending on the reputation of the school attended, could be fruitless. There is instinctive appeal to this process: law school does, after all, take every opportunity to separate, divide and classify. Why should the implications of 1L grades be any different? Firms need some basis to distinguish, and surely first year grades are as good a barometer by which to do so as any.

This answer is not satisfying, though, because the current system entails employers making important decisions on the basis of one-third of the total data. This does not benefit any interested party. The employers who, based on the fact they're looking to grades in the first instance, must believe that grades are a good indication of ability to perform (more on this later) are forced to make important hiring decisions without knowing all the facts. Students, by contrast have their hopes and job prospects compressed into one, high stakes year.

This latter fact is particularly troublesome in light of the current hiring system's structure. Indeed, the fact that students face the pressure they do during 1L makes 1L grades an even weaker predictor of future performance. Grades, as a general matter, can be volatile at the margins. Add a little pressure during a time of immense adjustment, and all bets are off. Firms thus make hiring decisions based on incomplete data that is often corrupted by the hiring process itself.

As with many things, it is easier to state the problem than to solve it. However, I offer the following as potential solutions to be ironed out:

1) Firms can strongly consider 2L grades when deciding whether to give permanent offers. While this would entail firms losing money by investing in candidates that they would not ever consider hiring, it could open up slots for people who performed well in upper-level courses after a poor 1L year.

2) Make all law school courses pass/fail, and allow students to distinguish themselves through practical skills-based competitions. This would accord with the more pragmatic approach Nima suggested. Obviously, one (potential) downside to this proposal is that it would exacerbate the emphasis firms place on school reputation. To try to address this problem, schools could make 1L grades pass/fail, and have graded upper level courses using the model most schools currently employ (e.g. students selecting their own classes, with a relaxed or abandoned curve).

3) Make 1L courses pass/fail, and impose mandatory 2L courses on students with the rigid curve that is a staple of 1L year. This proposed solution would let students ease into law school, and take the pressure off of grades initially. Hiring decisions during fall OCI would (presumably) be made based on school reputation and skills competitions. While employers would care a great deal about 2L grades, they would likely not, for fiscal reasons, choose to refuse offers to summers who performed poorly during 2L. This approach would, however, likely lead to reduced summer classes thereby allowing additional slots for those who performed well during 2L year. An obvious problem with this potential solution is that it still emphasizes looking to one-third of the grades package. But it is better than the current approach in that the grades to be depended on would not be detrimentally influenced by students adjusting to a new environment.

Of these options, I think option #1 is the worst and option #3 the best. Ideally, however, there would be a better way to handle this problem than any of the proposed solutions I list. Perhaps the reason it is so hard to find a satisfying solution to the problem is that there is no problem in the first instance? My entire discussion assumes that grades are heavily depended on by employers because they are a worthwhile tool for distinguishing how candidates will ultimately perform as attorneys. It may well be that, as alluded to above, grades are utilized simply because employers need to draw the line somewhere. If that is the case, does it even matter that the statistics depended on are (probably) unreliable and (definitely) incomplete?

Will you clerk in this economy?

Between the four or so letters I have received from my law school urging me to clerk after graduation, I have come to understand that clerking for a judge is a great (presumably, pre-firm) opportunity. Clerkships, I am told, are "to lawyers what post graduate fellowships are to doctors." Okay, fine. Like many of my peers, I was interested in clerking before the heavy sell; I was fortunate enough to have a great 1L summer working in a judge's chambers, and I saw firsthand just how valuable the experience is.

But the benefits of clerkships extend beyond the intangible experience everyone raves of. Indeed, as it stands today, most firms pay qualifying one-year clerks a $50,000 bonus along with class standing. While this monetary benefit is not enough to "make up" for the money lost spending a year working for a judge instead of a firm, it is a benefit that many undoubtedly consider when weighing whether to pursue a clerkship or not.

Let me be clear at the outset that I am not aware of any firm that has modified its policies with respect to judicial clerks. However, given the events discussed earlier, it seems conceivable—although, perhaps unlikely—that the market may change the way law firms treat judicial clerks.

There are, of course, compelling reasons for firms to do everything in their power to maintain the status quo. First, as noted, the experience is very valuable. It hones legal writing and reasoning ability immeasurably and thus brings associates to the firm who are better able to contribute. Second, clients love to have former clerks working for them; the positions are competitive, prestigious and former clerks have an "inside knowledge" of the judicial process.

Yet, with firms laying off by the dozen and swelled profits drying up, can anyone comfortably state that clerks will continue to receive BigLaw's "most favored associate" status? Probably not. In fact, it is entirely conceivable that clerking could pose an affirmative disadvantage for students with respect to firm employment: offers can be revoked, bar expenses unpaid…the potentially adverse consequences of choosing to clerk rather than go straight to a firm are plentiful.

I know I will still pursue a clerkship regardless of how the economy shapes the legal market in the next few months, but I am inclined to think that many who would otherwise want to clerk would be driven away by a change in the market. In these uncertain times, it is only natural to anticipate some degree of change in the priorities of ambitious law students.

Am I wrong to assume as much?