Discourse.net

More About Starting Salaries

The comments to University of Miami Law Tops Florida Bar Pass devolved into a discussion of the employment prospects of our graduates.

In the course of that discussion, questions were raised about the data the law school publishes in its Viewbook. In particular, commentators questioned the claim made there that the average starting salary for UM grads who work in firms is over $100,000. I wondered about that myself, as the breakout data later on the same page seemed to suggest something lower.

Could the law school have made a (convenient) error in the viewbook?

I took my concerns to the law school administration, who responded by giving me a full data dump and a full explanation. I don’t have the energy to try to type in all the data, so I’ll just try a simplified version of the explanation. [If you really have to have more, or have further questions, the Dean of Career Development, Marcy Cox, mcox@law.miami.edu (305-284-2668), says she’s happy to address them.]

According to Career Development Office, the reason why the both $104,500 number and the more detailed but somewhat different pie charts accompanying it are accurate has to do with response rates, differing data sets, and national reporting standards.

Not everyone who responded to the law school’s survey about what they were doing immediately after graduation chose to disclose their salary. Thus, the charts about firm size, for example, are based on a bigger data pool than the salary number. In 2007 we had 378 JDs. Of that group, 346 had replied to our survey at the time the Viewbook was produced. Of that 346, however, not all worked for firms — and of the group that worked for firms only about 46% gave us salary data. So the average salary number of $104,500 is based on the data provided by that 46%.

Since firm size and starting salary are related, you might reasonably object — as I did — that it would be more reasonable to pro-rate the responses of the people who gave salary data on the assumption that the people who didn’t fill in that part of the survey earned similar amounts by comparable firm size. And I still think there’s something to that. But I’m told by the Career Office — and I believe them — that the average salary data is presented the way it is because that’s how all law schools do it and the goal is to provide prospective students with numbers that can fairly be compared to what is provided by other law schools.

The Career Development Office avers that it collects the data and reports it in accordance with ABA and NALP guidelines, using the same methods that every other accredited law school in the country uses. Were the law school to do something else, the administration notes, it would no longer be reporting to students in the way it reports to the ABA and NALP. That would mean our data would have an asterisk. And even if we were doing it in order to provide better data the inevitable conclusion that most people would draw is that we were trying to hide something. So the Catch-22 is that we have to do it this way, possibly sacrificing some statistical excellence and even accuracy, or else we’ll look like we’re engaged in some sort of cover-up. And, of course, in addition to having an asterisk, we’d be harming our competitive position since we’d have gone to some trouble to calculate and report a lower number which would harm marketing and recruiting.

It seems to me that UM is between a rock and a hard place here. I would prefer that we use the best statistical techniques, pro-rate the data we have, and let the chips fall where they may. Following the national standards will, I believe, tend to cause this (and apparently almost every other) law school to report a number as “average” that is in fact likely to be higher than the reality. By my back-of-the-envelope calculations, what UM — following a methodology its competitors use — reports as an “average” salary for graduates in firms, is most likely closer to what someone in the 75th percentile of the salary distribution gets. And given the law firm salary structure is now a notoriously double-humped curve (see Starting Salaries For Law Students are BiModal — If Not Bipolar for more details), this is a fairly severe truth-in-advertising problem.

Students nationally have some right to be upset. On the other hand, it seems pretty hard to ask UM to engage in unilateral disarmament in the recruitment wars: this is a job for the ABA or the AALS to resolve on a national level. (It also means that students thinking about a law career and hoping for the giant salaries offered by the biggest firms should really understand what that double-humped curve means to their prospects.)

Meanwhile, however, I’ve asked the Career Development Office to include something in the next edition of the Viewbook that makes clearer the relationship between the various data sets it uses. They’ve agreed in principle, and we’ll thrash out some language when time comes to do the next edition.

A Model of Lawyer Advertising

Tom Goldstein Wants To Be Your Lawyer.

Kudos to Miami Law Firm

The WSJ blog gives deserved praise to Maimi firm Stearns Weaver for its holiday card:

Where most year-end greetings come with photos of adorable children and picturesque snow scenes, this one featured a picture of a food-bank truck (pictured) with the following text:

Past contributions by our firm have enabled the Daily Bread Food Bank to deliver over 1.3 million meals to those in need in our community.

This year, we decided to contribute a truck to help make the deliveries a little easier.

When you see this truck in our community, you may notice that our name is not on it. That is because the gift of this truck is made in your honor. It would not have been possible without you.

Nice work, gentlepersons.

The Daily Bread Food Bank (an affiliate of America’s Second Harvest) is one of the charities our household donates to.

French Firms Like Foreign Law Degrees

This surprised me:

Top French Attorneys Need US or U.K. Legal Degree | ABA Journal - Law News Now To get a top job at a law firm in France, a law degree from a well-regarded American or British law school is virtually required.

That’s because France has no law school viewed as first-rank, so BigLaw firms looking for French lawyers view the foreign law degree as a virtual necessity, reports Bloomberg. Traditionally, the law has not been treated equally with business, government and economics in France—all three of which, unlike the law, are represented among the “Grandes Ecoles,” French institutions of higher learning that offer prestigious professional degrees to a select group. Legal education is offered at public universities that are open to a much larger pool of students.

Hence, major law firms looking for attorneys in France prefer candidates with a business or economics degree from a Grande Ecole and an American or British law degree, says Renaud Bonnet, who serves as recruiting partner for the Jones Day office in Paris. “It’s no longer enough to just do law school.”

Many in France also see a need for more elite legal education there, and are promoting changes in the current system. “The legal profession is ascendant,” says Louis Vogel, the Yale University-trained president of France’s oldest law school. But for French attorneys to compete successfully with American and British lawyers, he says, “It is absolutely necessary to have a Grande Ecole of law.”

It’s true that as far as I can tell there isn’t as much interesting legal academic writing going on in France as I’d expect. There’s lots of interesting academic writing going on there, some of it is about law, but a surprisingly small amount of it is by law faculty.

Surprising, though, that the legal profession in a country with a reputation for a degree of intellectual insularity and for having a conservative legal establishment would be so open to foreign credentials. Perhaps those reputations are undeserved?

Jury Duty

I have jury duty, so no blogging for most of today.

As ‘Rumpole’ would say….See You In Court. For a few seconds of voire dire anyway.

Previous post: Called for Jury Duty.

Sometimes Miami Law Is Just Like on TV

I like to tell prospective and incoming law students that real-life law is nothing like what you see on TV. But the trouble is, we live in Miami, a place where much more often than it should be real-life law is just as wacky as what you see on TV.

Take for example this account of the past five days in the annals of Miami Law:

(1) a murder trial in which the witnesses give credible evidence that detectives threatened them (including in one case threatening to take the witness’s kids into care) in order to get them to give perjured testimony incriminating the defendant — but the increasingly pathetic-looking Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office says it has no intention of investigating whether the cops are bent;

(2) another murder case that lacked a body now features a lead detective who, on the witness stand, was made to admit to sleeping with a key witness.

(3) A local lawyer who runs a massive ticket-fixing business shot and killed an armed mugger by using the handgun he keeps in the glove compartment of his black Mercedes.

In other local traffic news, six-year-old girl foils carjacker by beating on him

“I smacked him on the head with my book”.

(4) Local Hollywood Police Chief James Scarberry blew a three-year-long FBI sting operation into corruption by officers on his force by blabbing about it to at other cops and local politicians. Not surprisingly, word quickly got out to the prime suspects who immediately tried to resign, stopping the investigation into their associates in its tracks and wasting a giant amount of police work. When first confronted about it the Chief told the press a series of lies, which he’s gradually been recanting.

(5) A prominent local builder was jailed yesterday, charged with embezzling public funds to buy a sculpture of a giant watermelon slice. He very vigorously contests the charges, and was photographed giving the finger to a reporter.

Local slice of life

(6) Cops arrest blogging photojournalist for taking crime scene photos.

(Post inspired by Justice Building Blog.)

Rumpole on the Rampage

The Justice Building Blog, a gossipy yet serious attempt to talk about what happens in the local courts, is on a bit of a roll recently: I recommend both Diary of a Mad Jurist and Traffic.Parking (about how to improve conditions in traffic court). Having been through it recently, I especially like the idea of moving traffic ticket soundings (in which the magistrate offers most offenders a plea — usually, so many dollars, no points) online. But I wonder if the proposed rule about never allowing continuances isn’t a bit harsh. Even the feds allow them for illness, for example.

On the other hand, I do think that last week’s post about the TV exposé of local cops is a bit late (unless maybe the local station is doing reruns?). I wrote about it a year ago.

The Herald Profiles a Local Legal Legend

Great article in the Miami Herald this morning about UM Law alum and old-school criminal defense lawyer Sy Gaer. And absolutely don't miss the sidebar with quotes about and by Sy Gear.

The Origins of the Yellow Legal Pad

Legal Affairs recounts the origins of the legal pad.

Personally, while very devoted to yellow yellow pads up through law school, I discovered that I really preferred white pads some time early in law practice. I think they are easier to read.

'Rumpole' Finds a Cause

[Update (5/11): As noted by a commentator, Rumpole retracts!

THE FOLLOWING POST IS INCORRECT. RUMPOLE BLEW IT. SEE THE POST ON 511/06. JUDGE FARINA HAS NOT ORDERED ANY INTERPRETER NOT TO INTERPRET FOR A DEFENDANT'S FAMILY. SORRY. WE BLEW IT.

Maybe I should change the title to "Rumpole Loses a Cause"? (Although as the comments to the later story make clear, the incident really happened; seems it was just a misunderstanding of some kind.)]

"Rumpole" of the Justice Building Blog, now quite the talk of Miami-Dade litigators, has found a Cause, and it's a good one:

JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG: NO HABLA INGLES....EVER

Here is the scene:
A lawyer is in court.
The Defendant is in custody.
There are sensitive plea negotiations at sidebar.
The case gets reset.
The defendant has to surrender his passport, pay a large fine and restitution before the case gets settled and he can get out of jail.
The new court date is two weeks away.

The interpreter does her job in court and on the way out the attorney wants to tell his client's family the new court date and what needs to be done.

The attorney signals to the interpreter, who walks over and in Spanish asks the people if they are defendants.
They politely tell the interpreter that no, they are the family of the defendant who was just in court and they ask her what happened and when they have to be back in court.

The Interpreter reaches into her pocket, pulls out her reading glasses, clears her throat (ahhem) and loudly says for all to hear:

HEAR YE HEAR YE, BY ORDER OF THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, I CANNOT ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS.
FURTHERMORE, BY ORDER OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, I CANNOT TRANSLATE ANY INSTRUCTIONS FROM YOUR ATTORNEY.
YOU MAY NOT BE TOLD THE NEXT COURT DATE.
YOU MAY NOT BE TOLD WHAT JUST HAPPENED.
WELCOME TO THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF DADE COUNTY.
I AM AUTHORIZED TO CONVEY TO YOU THAT THE CHIEF JUDGE, ON BEHALF OF ALL OF THE JUDGES OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
WISHES YOU A VERY NICE DAY.

This is not the rule elsewhere, not even in nearby Broward, which is not perhaps the watchword for sensitivity to non-English speakers and minorities. As Rumpole says, "WHEN BROWARD TAKES THE LEAD IN RACIAL OR ETHNIC SENSITIVITY, THEN YOU KNOW SOMETHING IS WRONG."

Deposition Texas-Style

Someone posted to YouTube a short video of a particularly horrific deposition excerpt, captioned "Joe Jamail and takes a deposition defended by Edward Carstarphen. Hilarity ensues." Well, not exactly.

Joe Jamail is a famous Texas lawyer, who has won some big cases and collected some giant fees. Most notably, Jamail represented Pennzoil against Texaco and won a jury verdict for $10.53 billion, then the largest jury verdict ever. Texaco later settled for $3 billion, and Jamail pocketed a third of that.

I suppose it is possible that Mr. Jamail had been smarting from the loss of his title as world's rudest lawyer. As reported in the National Law Journal in April, 2000,

Until recently, the classic example of incivility in litigation was famed Texas lawyer Joe Jamail's defense of a deposition witness in the 1993 Paramount-QVC Network-Viacom takeover battle. According to the excerpts of the deposition transcript included in an addendum to an opinion by the Delaware Supreme Court, Jamail told the examining lawyer that he could 'gag a maggot off a meat wagon' and made other vituperative remarks that the Delaware court labeled 'extraordinarily rude, uncivil and vulgar.' . ... Mr. Jamail's 'maggot' rhetoric has now been displaced by a new classic in incivility: a pre-suit letter sent by a New York litigator that threatened the prospective defendant with the 'legal equivalent of a proctology exam' if the plaintiff's claim weren't satisfied without litigation.

Maybe he wanted his title back.

Law Firm or Cult?

Law firm or cult? Jill poses the question as she looks on life After the law firm.

Lessons from Legal Practice

Ethan Leib, who is about start teaching at UC Hastings College of the Law, writes about what he learned from two years of legal practice:

Just what have I learned? That legal realism is at least partially true; that the law is at least partially autonomous; that the judiciary has severe institutional limitations; that clerks have a lot of power and those who teach them can have immediate impact; that politics is only relevant in the marginal cases in the lower courts; that being an advocate can be redemptive; that ethical questions pervade the profession; that practicing can be as intellectual and rigorous as any theoretical enterprise; that serving clients can make one feel extremely useful and selfless; that representing the poor or thinking through the cases of the dispossessed is an ennobling experience; that hierarchy and commitment to it is very damaging to legal institutions.

This strikes me all as pretty plausible, although my lessons from practice were somewhat different. In two clerkships, I found judges who adhered to precedent when they should, albeit one judge who was quite willing to encode his preferences when the law seemed truly open. Clerks, on the other hand, only had a lot of power if the judges let them — and only the bad judges let them. My three years in the firm did throw up an ethical question or two (which the firm resolved in textbook fashion), but it hardly pervaded our lives so long as we recalled a few simple rules that should be second nature to all lawyers.

I worked with people who would have agreed “that serving clients can make one feel extremely useful and selfless”; alternately, and in less grandiose terms, they felt they were solving other people’s hard problems while supporting their own families in style, and that made them feel pretty good. I respected that, but it didn’t work as well for me. Although I found I liked commercial practice much more than I would have expected, in the long run my clients — good people — tended to have complex but often boring problems. Strategy was fun, but lasted two days. Implementation was grueling, and could last months. And, at the end of it all, while I was happy that our guys won, and knew it mattered to their personal futures, deep down how much did I really care which oil company got the money?

If I’d had to, I could have carried on despite the long hours. But if I was going to have children, I wanted to see them. And, the lure of controlling my own intellectual agenda was very powerful. Now I’m my own client, I have interesting and complex problems, and I often listen to my lawyer.

[posting time corrected to reflect reality]

What We Learn from Microsoft's Rules of Software Design

Item 12 on 21 Rules of Thumb – How Microsoft develops its Software, a Microsoft developer’s list of rules of great software design:

“Portability is for canoes.”

Figures. Indeed, verges on abuse of a dominant position?

It’s also sort of interesting to compare this list to legal task organization, for example large-team litigation. Some of the rules work perfectly, some are irrelevant.

The first rule should certainly be engraved on every lawyer’s heart, and is something I always make a point of telling my students in every class I teach:

It is essential not to profess to know, or seem to know, or accept that someone else knows, that which is unknown. Almost without exception, the things that end up coming back to haunt you are things you pretended to understand but didn’t early on.

Allow Me to Fan the Flames of Your Burning Bridge

Gawker has this email purportedly from a departing lawyer at Paul, Hastings, a firm with a reputation for great intellectual brilliance exceeded by arrogance.

From: [REDACTED] Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:11 PM Subject: FW: Goodbye…

As many of you are aware, today is my last day at the firm. It is time for me to move on and I want you to know that I have accepted a position as “Trophy Husband”. This decision was quite easy and took little consideration. However, I am confident this new role represents a welcome change in my life and a step up from my current situation. While I have a high degree of personal respect for PHJW as a law firm, and I have made wonderful friendships during my time here, I am no longer comfortable working for a group largely populated by gossips, backstabbers and Napoleonic personalities. In fact, I dare say that I would rather be dressed up like a pinata and beaten than remain with this group any longer. I wish you continued success in your goals to turn vibrant, productive, dedicated associates into an aimless, shambling group of dry, lifeless husks.

May the smoke from any bridges I burn today be seen far and wide.

Respectfully submitted,

[SIGNED]

ps. Achilles absent, was Achilles still. (Homer)

(spotted via Brian Leiter)

Wilmer, Cutler to Merge with Hale & Dorr

I spent three years as an associate in the London office of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering and still have warm feelings towards the firm, even though it has grown a lot in the decade plus since I was there, and there are fewer and fewer of the folks I knew. Now it’s going to change (with the times?) by merging with Hale & Dorr, a Boston-based law firm, according to an email to firm alumni from WC&P managing chairman William Perlstein.

The initial word from the trade press seems positive, e.g. this item in the Washington Business Journal:

On the surface, the firms’ practices mesh well: Both have strong litigation departments, and Wilmer’s regulatory expertise combined with Hale and Dorr’s corporate work would complement each other.

The firms’ cultures also match, according to former attorneys at both firms.

“I would say that most law firm mergers are two dinosaurs mating, hoping to get a gazelle. That would not be the case here,” says Bill Flannery, president of WJF Institute, an Austin, Texas-based law firm marketing consultant. “Here you have two superior, cutting-edge, strong law firms. I’m very impressed by this merger, if in fact this is going to happen.”

Firm mergers tend to be difficult; for the sake of the folks I know at WC&P, I hope this one works out.

When I was there WC&P had a very intellectual and public-spirited culture, even in the branch offices (albeit slightly attenuated by distance); my sense is that this ethic has so far survived despite being under pressure from the exigencies of law firm economics. It’s even possible, given the economies of scale in legal practice (which seems to push firms to being small boutiques or megafirms, with little room for midsize), that growth of this sort may be the only way to preserve that culture. It would be interesting, though, to hear from more recent and more senior WC&P alumni (hint).

Perstein’s letter:

We are proud to announce some exciting news about WCP. The firm has agreed in principle to combine with Hale and Dorr LLP, effective by the end of May, to form Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.

We will be combining two great firms at a time when each standing alone is stronger than it has ever been. Each firm has several practices with unsurpassed reputations, and no single law firm now provides the same level of excellence in so many practice areas. We also share core values of professional excellence, exceptionally cordial work relationships, an emphasis on training and development, and a strong commitment to pro bono and the public interest. This is the first combination of two firms on The American Lawyer’s “A List” of elite firms, a ranking based not only on financial performance, but also on pro bono service, the treatment and development of associates, and diversity.

The combination will be a true merger of equals between firms of roughly equivalent size. When the combination takes effect, we will be a firm of about 1000 lawyers, with offices in Washington D.C., Boston, Baltimore, McLean VA, New York, Princeton NJ, Waltham MA, Berlin, Brussels, London, Munich, and Oxford.

For law students and lawyers joining us in the coming years, the combination will be very good news. It creates an even richer mix of the highest-level work, gives our lawyers a broader range of professional opportunities, and ensures the continued growth of our professional development and training programs. Both firms have historically provided superb professional development programs for their associates. In the 2003-4 Vault Guide to the Top 100 Law Firms, Hale and Dorr was ranked third in the country for training. Together, we expect to make our programs the best in the country. In addition, both firms share a long-standing commitment to individual mentoring that we fully expect to continue and build on.

In a world that is increasingly competitive globally as well as nationally, and in which the scale and breadth of a firm’s practice matters, we look upon this opportunity as a tremendously exciting platform for continuing to build our practice — while enhancing our reputation for excellence and the culture in which we take so much pride. We are looking forward to the new paths that the combination will open up for the firm and all of its lawyers.

Sincerely yours,

William J. Perlstein Managing Partner