I read with interest a couple pieces today here and here on the value of law school, and the ethics of continuing to open new law schools, admit new students, promote salaries that are unrealistic in today’s economy, and saddle students with $100,000 or more in debt on graduation day … all with impunity.

I’ve been asked by several people, including fans of The Legal Watercooler, my opinions on entering law school at this time.

My answer: are you a gambling man, or woman? Are you willing to roll the dice and hope that a high-paying job is waiting for you in three years?

Thousands of young adults made that decision three years ago, only to see their dream jobs deferred and deferred again. The golden ticket, a summer associate position, no longer guarantees entry into the white-shoed world of BigLaw.

I’m not saying don’t go to law school. I’m just saying that before you enter the hallowed halls of law school, think long and hard. Why are you entering law school? What type of law do you want to practice? Are you entrepreneurial enough to open your own firm if need be? Do you have the personality, or are you savvy enough, to become a rainmaker? And, most importantly, are you willing to gamble $100,000 (or more) and three years of your life away??

There are a lot of different barometers out there for judging whether or not an individual has the personality skills to be a rainmaker. Unfortunately, LSAT results might not be amongst them.

According to a chart prepared by the Tax Prof Blog, the best “candidate” for law school, the person with the highest LSAT score, is most likely to be a Math or Physics major.

Ugh. That explains it!!

At a prior AmLaw 100 firm, I was chastised for not getting the chair of the IP department “out there more,” writing, doing press. My response, “The guy has an undergrad in Chemistry, then went off to law school. I’m lucky if he opens his door.”

As the BUSINESS of law, and the success of any given individual lawyer, is becoming more dependent on the development of personal relationships, the ability to reach out and promote one’s self, and SALES, then we need to remove the barriers that keep those who are so predisposed out of law school.

I’m not saying that the logic questions, while fun, should be excluded, but should we not be testing other skills as well that would identify good business leaders and business developers? Those of us who are in-house know that the role of service partner (smart, in high quantity, little ability to build a personal book of business) is being inched out in favor of rainmakers (smart, in low quantity, lots of personality and ability to build a personal book of business).

Simply stated: The success of any given lawyer in today’s law firm is dependent on many factors, the greatest of which are 1) good lawyering; and, 2) the ability to bring in new business.

I really don’t think that a Sociology/Social Work, Marketing, Business Management, Education, Business Administration, Health Professionals, Prelaw, and Criminal Justice major is less capable of LEARNING law school lessons than a Physics/Math, Economics, Philosophy/Theology major. We all understand that the APPLICATION of the lessons takes place AFTER the bar results are reached.

Kevin O’Keefe has a great post today, Seize the moment lawyers, that I recommend everyone thinking about a blog read — lawyer or not!

Lawyers are not alone in allowing their fears, or their lack of understanding of something new, stand in the way of them taking action. However, now is not the time to allow fear and ignorance hold you back. Now is the time to seize the moment.

Nancy Myrland summed it up perfectly in the comments section:

Don’t let fear paralyze your growth. How will you feel a few years down the road when asked what you did to weather the economy; to maintain and grow your practices and your firms? Will you be slightly embarrassed when you answer that you cut staff, cut marketing, cut participation in the community, reduced your ability to have discussions with current and potential clients, on and on and on? Or will you feel great because you took advantage of the silence being created by that group I just mentioned? Will you be able to hold your head high, knowing you took advantage of this time to focus on communicating and marketing like never before?

I hate to say “I called it first” (which I really didn’t, but I was close), but I’ve been talking about the “lost generation” of law students for quite some time. Who could look at all of these law firm layoffs and not reach the same conclusion?

From a May 19, 2009, post Looking for Inspiration in the Recession:

Yet more proof that the Class of ’09 is the Lost Generation.

Get ready, Class of ’09, more announcements like this to come. You may think you are just deferred, but you are really fired.

Boy, has that ever come true. Didn’t realize it would trickle down to the Class of 2010, and who can predict what will occur for those 1Ls.

Today, the ABA Journal seems to be getting the message in their post, A ‘Lost Year’ for 2Ls: About Half of BigLaw Jobs Are Gone

The timing couldn’t be worse for second-year law students.

Large law firms are hiring about half as many summer associates as usual, resulting in “the most wrenching job search season in over 50 years,” the New York Times reports. For many second-year law students, the “golden ticket” to a high-paying career at a big firm is slipping away.

Now these students are scrambling for other jobs at smaller firms, in government and in public-interest organizations.

Students who took out large loans to go to top-tier schools assumed they could pay off their debt with high-paying law firm jobs. But this year is different, says Irene Dorzback, the assistant dean for career services at New York University law school.

“People are now accepting this notion of a lost year,” she told the Times.

But, we’re not about the problem here at The Legal Watercooler. We like going Pollyanna on you, and we are always happy to support those who are part of the solution.

Today, The New York City Bar and City Bar Justice Center announced their Deferred Associate Law Extern Support Project, and we wish them the best of luck!

The New York City Bar and City Bar Justice Center are pleased to announce the launch of the Deferred Associate Law Extern Support Project. The Project was created in response to the growing pool of law school graduates who have been deferred for up to a year from private law firms and have chosen to work in public interest law in New York City. The Project is also open to law firm associates who have accepted year-long voluntary deferral offers from their firms.

The main goal of the project is to provide a series of training sessions that will help the law firm externs get up to speed on the hard and soft skills needed to succeed at their externships and when they return to law firms. A secondary goal of the Project is to bring the externs together with their peers to discuss their experiences in a supportive environment and to meet leaders in the legal profession who support pro bono efforts.

I could not agree more with this statement more:

Social media isn’t a fad, it’s a fundamental shift in the way we communicate.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIFYPQjYhv8&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1]

Watching my Twitter feed today I really enjoyed the following conversation:

Timothy B. Corcoran tweeted that at an ITLA09 panel discussing how technology can support alternative fees, a BigLaw partner said:

Clients can look for savings elsewhere in legal budget other than my billable hour.

Matt Homann quickly concurred, “And they will!!”

In all fairness, Nancy Myrland replied:

I think he was suggesting that it’s not just about squeezing vendors. Maybe there are other inefficiencies too.

Nancy also added this to the conversation:

Also, the myth that alternative fees will def’y be savings 4 the client is alive & well. There’s no guarantee.

I agree with Nancy, and Tim. There are always inefficiencies within any budget. Alternative fees are not a guarantee of cost savings for the corporate counsel. However, it is not up to the vendor to decide which inefficiencies a client should correct before asking them to cut their rates.

I wrote about the dynamic of in-house legal departments as cost centers for a corporation. Private practice lawyers need to understand the pressures faced by their clients. They are being asked to cut their budgets, trim the fat, and to quantify dollars spent.

There will always be a few, and I mean a few as in fewer than five, firms that will be able to consistently dictate their price on “bet the farm” litigation and complex corporate matters. And, that doesn’t necessarily trickle down to the entire firm.

Before you can emphatically say “NO” to a client request for alternative fee arrangements, are you in a position where your clients can say “Good-bye” to you?

If you haven’t heard about ABA Journal’s Legal Rebels project, don’t worry. It doesn’t kick-off until September 14th.

In these times of great economic chaos lies great opportunity.

The legal profession is not just struggling through a recession, but also undergoing a structural break with the past. There is a growing consensus that the profession that emerges from the recession will be different in fundamental ways from the one that entered it.

Dozens of lawyers nationwide aren’t waiting for change. Day by day, they’re remaking their corners of the profession. These mavericks are finding new ways to practice law, represent their clients, adjudicate cases and train the next generation of lawyers. Most are leveraging the power of the Internet to help them work better, faster and different.

The Legal Rebels project will profile these innovators and describe the changes they are making. It will tell their stories in the ABA Journal, on this website and through a variety of social media channels using text, pictures, audio and video

The first seven profiles were released today.

And I am glad to say that they are not the “usual suspects” or lawyers, for that matter. For a true “legal rebel” can even be found in a humble legal marketing director, a legal librarian, a consultant with gumption … all of whom can be nominated here.

Working Mother Magazine recently released their Top 50 Best Law Firms for Women. Having worked at two of these firms I’d like to suggest to the editors of Working Mother, and all the blogs that reran the story, that they change it to Top 50 Best Law Firms for Women LAWYERS.

From my personal experience, there is a disconnect between the benefits for the lawyers and those for the staff (and managers who usually fall somewhere in between). While the benefits provided for the Top 50 are generous for the women lawyers, I wonder about those provided to the assistants (who are primarily women), paralegals (once again, majority are women), receptionists (women), accounting, marketing and the administrative staff (women, women, women).

I am glad that the firms in this country are being pressured by Working Mother and Yale Law Women to increase their benefits for the lawyers, but before they bestow a “best place” honor on a firm, why not take a deeper look and see if that benevolence trickles down to the rest of the cogs that make that firm run?

JMHO.

I relate to in-house counsel. Not because I’m a lawyer, but because we are both cost-centers to our respective organizations. We are both beholden to the shareholders and partners of our companies and firms. We are trusted servants of a budget with no apparent revenue stream. We both provide necessary services. Yet, in a down economy, our cost-centers are immediately looked to for further belt-tightening. Any savings, or costs, within our departments directly impact the bottom line.

We also support the livelihood of our vendors, consultants and service providers outside our firms. Many of whom become the first casualty of our budget tightening.

Sometimes, however, I wonder if my vendors and consultants get this. Several have come to me with new (and more expensive) “solutions” to problems I really don’t have … or problems I don’t need to concern myself with this year or in 2010 either.

I have a feeling that corporate counsel and their litigators are experiencing a similar schism.

Litigators across the nation were waiting breathlessly for a wave of litigation that normally follows a recession. Unfortunately, litigators are realizing something all Americans are these days: this is not your father’s recession or your grandfather’s Great Depression.

In The National Law Journal Karen Sloan writes about the dynamic between litigators and corporate counsel in, For litigators, a different kind of recession.

A year ago, as the economy began its freefall, corporate law departments were preparing for an all-out assault by plaintiffs. Some 34% of in-house counsel polled as part of Fulbright & Jaworski’s annual Litigation Trends Survey said they expected to face more suits against their companies in the coming 12 months — a significantly higher percentage than in the previous year. That result made sense: Recessions usually breed litigation.

The early numbers for this recession are showing something quite different. Litigation, a number of recent surveys show, isn’t really all that more active than it was before the recession.

Corporate counsel are more concerned today with containing costs, avoiding litigation and settling matters than previously anticipated.

A survey of general counsel by Altman Weil in late 2008 found that 75% of general counsel had their budgets cut in 2009. The average decrease was 11.5%. “It’s not down 2 or 3%. It’s double digits,” said Susan Hackett, senior vice president and general counsel for the Association of Corporate Counsel. “They can’t afford litigation. There’s a real sense of, ‘Make this go away quickly and quietly.’ “

Hackett has observed a greater reluctance by companies to initiate litigation or defend themselves in court. Instead, they are “looking to apply the least expensive Band-Aid” to their legal problems. “I’m seeing a greater focus on saying, ‘We will try to make you whole somehow. What can we do? What do you want?’ Sometimes money isn’t the ultimate goal,” Hackett said.

Hackett’s point was echoed by Peter Sloane, a litigation partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel in New York: “I see clients who are much more focused on the cost-benefit analysis before starting litigation. There’s a much greater emphasis on thinking outside the box in approaching legal disputes.”

This can actually be good news for many lawyers and the RELATIONSHIP they have with their clients.

First of all, put down that pre-bill and call your clients. Sit down, face-to-face and for free, and discuss with your clients how the recession is impacting their companies, their legal departments. What are your clients’ strategies to protecting their personal jobs, as well as insulating their companies? How can you, as their legal counsel, partner with them on alternative solutions to litigation? How can you become part of the solution rather than a line item that can be vetoed during the 2010 budgeting process?

You might not see a new matter this year, but you will gain a deepened relationship that will be rewarded once the economy, and litigation, picks up.

In the legal world, we hear from GCs time and again that, with all things being equal, they hire lawyers they know, like and trust.

Social networking isn’t about “selling” a product or a service; it is about expanding our networks and connecting with people with similar or like interests. It’s about becoming known, liked and trusted by those in a position to hire or refer us business.

Kevin O’Keefe was amongst my first follows on Twitter. As we learned by using the tool, I would “listen” in as Kevin would Tweet baseball games. I got to know Kevin, like Kevin and trust Kevin through Twitter and other social media and networking tools.

While a lot of people were still questioning Twitter, we spent time over coffee, over the phone, texting about how social networking could impact client development for lawyers.

One thing became extremely apparent early on: Twitter was extremely powerful (and quick) in identifying a broad network of people with whom we could network and develop relationships. We just had to figure out how to convert these relationships into new business. Turns out, it isn’t that complicated.

Kevin writes about it brilliantly in Baseball and client development for lawyers.

But so many lawyers and legal professionals try to force the issue of networking through the Internet for practice and client development. They’re off chasing instant connections with people who they think may be the perfect client. Worse yet, they’re doing it by broadcasting stuff of little value to their target audience via email newsletters, websites, and ill written blogs. Often touting their own virtues.

Craig started following me on the net in large part because of my interest in baseball. Not only did I get an invite to speak at that seminar for Northwest corporate leaders, but Lane Powell is likely to become a client of LexBlog‘s (knock on wood).

I love baseball and all the history that comes with it. You love other stuff. It doesn’t matter what it is. Start following and networking with others with similar interests. Just because you’re a lawyer doesn’t mean you have to network through the Internet with the law being the overriding theme. You can relax and have some fun while doing client development.

I personally Tweet on issues I find interesting to me. Monday through Friday, 9:00 to 5:00 it’s usually about the business of law, with a big dose of my personality. “Twitter After Hours” can be about anything (Girl Scouts, music, traffic, movies) and where my personal connections deepen.

Oh, and Go Dodgers!!