It feels like it was only yesterday when we joined in this open thread to commiserate about the MPRE, but "score release day" has come and gone.Your score report is now available, and can be accessed at this link.The November administration of the MPRE has come and gone. And while we'll (apparently) have to wait five weeks for scores to be released, that will not stop the most neurotic of us from worrying about it. Here's an open thread to do just that--enjoy!
So J-Lo, Marc Anthony, Gloria Estefan and (soon) Fergie are part owners of the Miami Dolphins? Guess Rush should consider going into the music business. As the Kansas City Star notes, "that's the kind of celebrity who brings glitz and glamour to the NFL." Hmm. . . .
Several months ago, we opened a thread putting forth a commenter's proposal for changes to law firm compensation that would help firms "cut costs and still harbor and nurture their talent." While the proposal was most readily criticized for its initial pay-scale ranging between 90 and 135k, a pay cut to that level may be on the horizon--albeit in a considerably different manner than that suggested by our commenter.[A]ssociate compensation still appears out of line. The reductions announced so far are about half of what is probably required (i.e. going from $160,000 to $145,000 should probably go much further to $125,000 or even $100,000); thus resetting the wage scale by a decade. This is a painful reality and one that surely will fire up emotions. But the tide has changed; clients are moving quickly and assertively to reduce legal spend. This goes beyond alternative fee arrangements (AFAs). Costs of outside legal bills are going to come down, and from the early signs — down dramatically. Services will be competitively bid, outsourced, off shored, converged, internalized, re-engineered, and even forgone. Now add the AFAs to create greater certainty regarding total cost along with a healthy measure of risk transfer from the client to the law firm. All of this will bring the major line item in any law firm — the cost of people — under assault. This will affect total employment, wage scales and job expectations. The pace of the salary change is directly affected by the pace of change in what clients will pay for legal services.Thoughts?
Well, BBL-ers-- It's getting to that time of the year where Finals hangs over our heads like the sword on the thinnest string (as if I would have to remind such a studious group of scholars!) This is an open thread; I welcome each of you to participate in answering the following questions.
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.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.
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.
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.
It's hard to feel optimistic about our country's economic future these days, and it is increasingly apparent that the legal industry is no more immune to America's new reality than anyone else. With the prospects for high paying legal employment (seemingly) dwindling by the day (see AboveTheLaw if you're in the mood to be depressed), it seems evident we need to come up with innovative solutions for dealing with student loan debt. Most law students, after all, have loan debt in excess of $150,000--the repayment of which will begin only a few short months after graduation. How can those of us who graduate without a job, or are deferred (perhaps perpetually) from our start date reasonably be expected to pay off our debt?Forgiving student loan debt would have an IMMEDIATE stimulating effect on the economy. Responsible people who did nothing other than pursue a higher education would have hundreds, if not thousands of extra dollars per month to spend, fueling the economy NOW. Those extra dollars being pumped into the economy would have a multiplying effect, unlike many of the provisions of the new stimulus package. As a result, tax revenues would go up, the credit markets will unfreeze and jobs will be created. Consumer spending accounts for over two thirds of the entire U.S. economy and in recent months, consumer spending has declined at alarming, unprecedented rates. Therefore, it stands to reason that the fastest way to revive our ailing economy is to do something drastic to get consumers to spend.Several major news outlets have already reported on this interesting idea. But surely there are other plausible solutions that could both improve our economic woes and help students who are, regrettably, bound to face student debt struggles.
In response to an earlier article, a commenter had an interesting proposal for "Big Law" compensation:Here's what my proposal to the ABA would be: Find a way to create a mandate of a 90/110/135 scale for each of the V100 firms. After 3 years, the firm and the experienced attorney can negotiate on a personal basis, such that the compensation package would reflect what the attorney actually brings and would bring to the firm. In return, the BigLaw firms would be able to cut costs and still harbor and nurture their talent.Putting the specific numbers the commenter suggests, which are on the low end, this proposal actually makes a lot of sense as a way for firms to protect their interests while avoiding mass layoffs in this economic climate. And there are other conceivable benefits, too.
