Good stuff here in your response. Thanks for your thoughfulness on what I was saying. Here is what I agree with you in your response, coupled with some observations: 1) I should hope that you aren't going to tell me all trademark enforcement is reasonable. Of course you are right here. As in any system, it is pushed to its extremes. The better question is not whether firms are pushing it or if the laws are broken that get us there. This is what happens when you have undereducated (on the subject) congressmen putting this stuff together. 2) Frankly, given what I do, I am comparing this to advanced degrees in basic science and engineering, which you don't have to pay for, or management and economics, which are expensive, but don't have the same sort of lifestyle associated with them upon graduation with the exception of the crazy world of business consulting firms. I agree, you bastards in the science field have had it easy for far too long! :) Basically, at this point, there are grad school degrees and there are prof. degrees. Lawyers and doctors work their asses off. Business school grads are beginning to face a similar fate-- the value of an MBA is quickly dropping to the point where the only people making real money with it are those in a big consulting firm. It's only benefit-- two years, rather than three. $35k saved there. Now, some things that I believe I can provide some insight on: 3) The point I'm making is that I don't understand why some law firms can't pay less and expect less (in terms of hours, not quality) and hire more people. The economics are similar, and my understanding of the sort of work typical junior associates perform is not really difficult enough to require a degree from harvard. Here's the thing: the economics don't work out. I have seen this firsthand. You don't make as much money with more associates and less hours. Reasons: overhead. More staff to support them, more physical space needed for them, you have to pay their health insurance, and other benefits. All of those things go directly toward partner profits. Partner profits are regularly reported in the legal press and directly affect your ability to get top talent (read: large portfolios of business) in partners and top talent out of law schools. The most profitable firms in the world require 2400 billable hours a year and will fire you if you don't make it. But if you do, they will pay you $160,000 as a first year and give you five-figure bonuses. Read abovethelaw.com and law.com for more details on the big firms. That said, you don't *have to* go to a big firm. There is literally every size in between. I have a friend who just went from a multi-thousand attorney firm to a three-person firm. My dad has been in-house at multiple countries and in private practice at several firms. There are many paths. 4. The question I'm trying to answer for myself is whether those differences are worth the money... This question is personal and the answers are not transferable. There is nothing I can offer here. You are completely correct. The real economic question is whether to go to a top-tier private school and shoot for the big money or to go to a lower-cost state school and get to do something else afterwards. This is always a big struggle and I'm not sure that I could even give the same answer at different times over the past tene years. 5. I would like to discuss the jury thing with you sometime. K and I were discussing earlier today and, having now practice for almost four years, I am not sure any of the systems provide better answers. Indeed, we just lost a bench trial a few months back that, on the law, we deserved to win. Unfortunately, I think the judge (or rather, their law clerk-- the recent law school graduate assigned to write the opinion) didn't understand the law. So where does that leave us in this system? Anyway, I feel your pain on this one. All I can say is that it is incredibly rewarding, particularly as you are already well suited to argue . but, as always, there are costs. RE: The Problem with the Legal Profession |