Teaching What It’s Like to Work For Biglaw: Seems Like a Silly Idea, But Not For the Reasons You’d Think

Small to mid-size firms that hire recent graduates (they are out there) seem to most often be ventures started by former big firm folks. These people tend to want to impose at least some big firm expectations (and mindsets about hours, etc.) on their associates, but have difficulty doing so, and not just because of the pay differential – it takes time to teach people how to bill, how to leverage support staff, etc. I have no idea what the motivation for this program was, but it might make these kids more attractive to this type of employer.
On your other point, although I agree that this type of skills training in law school is mostly a waste of time, I also think that a good case can be made that this is true of the entire second and third year curriculum. Setting aside the question of what we would do with all the law professors (maybe we could set up LLM programs in something other than tax, for people who actually _want_ to study law as an academic subject), wouldn’t the students be better off with an expanded “first year” of case method courses (say, three semesters), with the second “year” devoted to writing, the traditional extracurriclar stuff (journal editing, moot court, etc.) and bar prep courses?

Agreed that it should not be mandatory.
I would, though, add a little to your point about the big firms overworking files, for the benefit of any students or recent graduates reading this and maybe getting discouraged or intimidated about what big firms can bring to litigation.
In practice, a good bit of sloppy, thrown together stuff comes out of even the “best” firms. Moreover, even the better work from big firms shows a tendency to miss the forest for the trees or, even worse, relies too heavily on the research folders and that firm’s “brief bank” without thinking enough about how the law fits the specific facts of the case.

To Commenter X:
I am really sorry that I offended you with my comments, because in the game of real law practice, once lawyers have a few years of experience under their belt, I see no distinction between any schools. The factors that determine success in law, and in starting a practice are passion for what you do, determination, nerve and resourcefulness. I have worked with attorneys of all types, from all walks of life, both in practice on on listserves. I’ve received great advice from lawyers who went to so-called great schools and those who didn’t. I want to make that perfectly clear. And, your point about the minimal differences in the admission criteria between top and bottom schools and the fact that all share excellent faculty is well taken.
When I discussed graduates who’ve worked for me (generally for short term contract positions or summer jobs), I should clarify that they were either recent grads, a year or two out of school or students. And what I have found within this population is that as a general matter, the higher tier schools, for whatever reason, produce better writers. What I did not mention in my post, is that (again, in my experience), the higher tiered schools do not necessarily produce students or graduates with common sense, good communications skills or work ethic. Believe me, I have had my share of dud workers from top schools, people who were incapable of figuring out that sometimes you need to call the court clerk to get information, or who couldn’t figure out how to draft interrogatories or explain a form to a client or witness. The latter skills are also important, critical to success as a lawyer. Eventually, everyone improves – poor writers learn to write better after seeing other briefs, and poor “relaters” learn to communicate better and gain some common sense. Personally, I think that the latter skills develop a little more rapidly than the former, which is why I’m not a fan of extensive skills training. But at the end of the day, most of these differences are short term, lasting perhaps up to three years out. Beyond that, it’s an equal playing field as far as I can tell.
However – and this is the unavoidable reality of the legal profession – is that many people do regard grads of lower schools (or even professors there) as lesser in ability. (As an aside, I remember once getting involved in a discussion among some faculty members at my law school, Cornell, who were mocking Justice Kennedy when he was appointed to the Supreme Court because he taught at McGeorge Law School. I found this so offensive, and said something like – “What’s wrong with teaching at McGeorge if their faculty are good enough to get appointed to the Supreme Court?”). The point is that our profession is dominated by hierarchy. Hierarchy explains those professors’ comments, and hierarchy explains why large law firms will turn down lateral partners who generate millions in billables but who were in the bottom half of their class (even at a top school!). And hierarchy is why large firm lawyers look down on solos and can’t understand that any of us are competent or why we would choose the solo option. Those are just some of the realities of the legal profession and I accept them. I’ve got too many important things to do to try to change “what is,” I’d rather just find a better path.
Also, as I’ve said many times on this blog, big law is not the be all and end all of the legal profession. Big law gets too much attention to begin with, which is why I started my blog in the first place. Who cares if big law doesn’t hire people from lower schools? The legal profession is one of the greatest places for equal opportunity success, and anyone from any school can find it, particularly by starting a firm.
To all my readers, (including the one who left the comment) please do not let this drive you away from my blog. I celebrate solo and small firm lawyers from all backgrounds, all walks of life and all law schools. And I truly value all of my readers, and am humbled by the opportunity to be part of your reading repertoire.

http://www.law.udmercy.edu/news_events/docket/2006/summer/summerassociates.php