Our world contains some pretty remarkable things: the Grand Canyon, Mozart’s operas, the Great Wall of China. One common attribute of all of these, and the tens or more of others I could name, at the risk of sounding ridiculous, is that we immediately recognize them for what they are; literally extraordinary, in a manner that leaves us marveling at the abilities of nature and humanity.

There are, on the other hand, some pretty miraculous things that are so much ordinary parts of our lives that we barely notice how special they are; the birth of a child, for example, or a simple sunrise. Stopping to think about them, one can be awed by the mere fact that nature, or God if you prefer, or both,, could bring together the almost unbelievable correlations of circumstances that make these things possible.

One of the true miracles of modern society took place last week. The citizens of the United States, deeply and almost evenly divided on matters of ideology, policy, principle, program, and values, peacefully elected a president. And all Americans, no matter how unhappily, accepted the result.

Other nations have achieved something of this miracle. The European democracies have, relatively recently, come to create some form of it. Even China, with its leadership change this week, will see it done peacefully, with citizen acceptance if without citizen participation. But the miracle that is the American presidential election is the most successful, longest-running, and socially broadest such event in the world. True, there was a bit of a hiccup following the election of 1860. But despite the horrors it produced, in the end the United States remained a nation, even truer to its founding principles. During the long period of bitter sectional divide that followed, we continued to elect our presidents and accept the results. Even when the United States Supreme Court, in the opinion of many (myself included), wrongly interjected itself effectively to decide a presidential election, the losing side accepted the ultimate legitimacy of that act. To my mind, this achievement is on the order of the Grand Canyon, or the Great Wall. (I’m still thinking about Mozart’s operas.)

I guess it’s fair to ask why I’m departing from my usual practical musings and waxing philosophical today. I guess the fact that yesterday was Veterans Day has gotten me thinking of the sometimes extraordinary price some of us pay to continue our uniquely successful popular democracy. So many American men and women have sacrificed their own welfare and, too often, their lives, to protect this thing that we take for granted.

But that led me to another thought. Our veterans were, and the members of our armed services are, protecting a structure built by lawyers. Not only built by lawyers, but structurally maintained and kept operational by lawyers. And not just a few special lawyers here and there, although certainly such people have always stepped in at times of crisis to maintain our practices and our order. Every lawyer, whatever her practice, daily helps to maintain a system that emphasizes individual freedom, personal accountability, systematic social order through a combination of legal proscriptions and the incentives law stimulates, and protection against governmental abuses of power, with a keen awareness of our professional responsibility to ensure that it is, in fact, laws that rule, not people.

It’s often hard to think about this when you’re trying to meet a court deadline, close a merger, probate an estate amidst an unattractively quarreling family, or find basic healthcare for your indigent client. But if you step back for a moment, it’s obvious.

It is the right and moral thing to do, to thank our veterans. Without them, who knows what our world would look like, but it’s a good bet it wouldn’t look as good as it does. I, for one, have the deepest respect, admiration, and gratitude for what the men and women of our armed forces give us and, by giving us, sacrifice themselves.

But it’s also ok to remember to thank lawyers around election time. although we rarely make the sacrifices of soldiers. Without our veterans, we could not sustain our miraculous democracy. Without lawyers, there would be nothing to protect.

 
O.K. So everybody knows that law school applications dropped almost 14% this year, and another 10% the year before. Much of this has been blamed on the economy, the rotten job market, and the scare tactics by the blogs and the press. I wrote about the hype and reality of this phenomenon two entries ago. Today, I want to explain what this situation means for those of you who are thinking about applying to law school.

This is the year to apply to law school. I know, I know. All the bad press, the genuinely slow job market, the high cost of tuition, student debt. These are all concerns. But don’t let the concerns conceal simple market logic and the opportunities now open to you.

First, 34% of the drop in applications this year came from LSAT scores between 160 and 169. This means a lot, to those of us trying to compete for the best students, and for those of you who are thinking about applying to law school.

The law of supply and demand tells us that when demand is high (that’s us, the law schools), and supply is low (you, the applicants), something’s got to give. Well, two things have “given” this year. First, law schools are taking applicants with LSAT scores they never would have considered a year or two ago. I don’t want to give out trade secrets, but you can do the research, and I can assure you, having been deep in the admissions trenches this year, that it’s true. Frankly, I’ve been amazed at the LSAT scores highly ranked schools have been taking. So, the bottom line: You will get into a better law school this year than you ever could have gotten into in the past, and perhaps the future as well.

The second thing that’s “given” is price. Not the sticker price of tuition – that’s gone up. But what has gone up far more substantially is the amount of merit-based scholarships law schools are willing to dish out in order to attract the best students. Of course the definition of “best students” varies by law school. But remember, substantially fewer of you have LSAT scores in the 160-169 range, and so the definition of “best students” at many law schools has changed. You might not have qualified for substantial financial aid (at a school that might not have admitted you) a year or two ago. Now, you do. And this means that a law school’s published tuition may mean nothing to you. If you’re accepted, some or all of your education may be paid for by your law school.

For example, my own school, Case Western Reserve, more than doubled its financial aid budget. (Unlike most schools, I’m proud to say, our increase in financial aid allowed us to increase our median LSAT score by 2 points.)

Your response is obvious: If you’re sitting on the sidelines thinking about law school, you have nothing to lose by applying this year. The quality of school to which you’re admitted, and the amount of financial aid you may get, could make it much easier for you to make a decision and finance your education. Jobs will be around. Your opportunity to go to a better law school, cheaper, suggests that you are more likely to get one of them and be far less in debt.

I don’t want to sound like a used-car salesman, and nobody can predict the future, but nobody knows how long this situation will last. Like most markets, the market for law students will attain some sort of equilibrium over the next few years, following the crash of this year. When it does, the opportunities available now may be unavailable tomorrow.

That’s why I say: This is the year to apply.

As I wrote in my last posting, the job market is difficult, but not cataclysmic. I tried to provide some context and history, and I hope you found it somewhat encouraging.

I write today for more practical purposes. Finding a job – your first job -- is a bit more complex than you might think. But it’s not rocket science. A major reason that many students - even those at the top of the class – don’t succeed, or don’t succeed as they want, is their failure to be thoughtful, reflective, and mindful about the process and themselves and, more particularly, what prospective employers are looking for. I’m not talking about whether you did a concentration in intellectual property or health law. I am talking about doing the work it takes to understand and empathize with the person sitting across the table from you, to appreciate what it is that person sees that distinguishes the successful from the unsuccessful candidate.

So I’d like to report from the trenches, the take-aways I’ve been given in my visits over the last year with at least 50 hiring partners spread around the country. And maybe add a little common sense of my own.

It’s not about the grades. Once you have been offered an interview, the presumption is that you can do that work; otherwise, the firm wouldn’t be wasting its time with you. It’s not about where you go to law school, although that may be a factor requiring a little bit more effort and ingenuity in getting the interview. Put simply, it’s about you.

I have found it universally to be true that employers are looking for a few basic qualities. Many of you have these qualities, and understand effective and tasteful ways to put them on display. You will succeed. Some of you think you have these qualities, or may be insecure about them, and allow yourselves to come across as arrogant and entitled. This is the kiss of death, and with a little thought and reflection you can overcome this problem. Many of you have these qualities, but for some reason or another, you are hesitant to let them be seen, or seen clearly. This is a significant problem, one you can fix, but you have to work on it. Some of you lack these qualities, whatever your grades or law school. They are attainable, but you must work quickly to attain them, or at least to act as if you have them. Even if you do the latter, and do it consistently, they will eventually become a part of your persona.

So what are these qualities? The best way I have of summing it up comes from Yiddish, the language of my youth. Be a mensch. (Yes, mensch is a gendered word, but in the world today it applies to anybody who embodies these qualities.) What does it mean? It means to be an honest, straightforward, hard-working, humble person who readily takes responsibility, recognizes fault, and fixes mistakes. It is the kind of person to which we all should aspire, a person who projects confidence in herself, instills confidence in others, listens carefully, opines even more carefully, and understands that he is not –ever – the most important person in the room.

Law is a service business. You are there to serve your client – period. And, in serving your client and making your way to a leadership position, you must serve those above you, too. You may enter law school with a Ph.D. in Physics from Cal Tech, rank at the top of your class, be editor-in-chief of your law review, and have spent two years between graduation and law school working in an impoverished village in a developing country to feed starving children. But if, at your interview, you come across as an arrogant jerk (which, put more gently, means that you convey a sense of entitlement, an attitude that certain work is beneath you, the feeling that your interviewer should be grateful you are sitting there), you’re not going to get the job – or any job you want. Everybody has to pay her dues. Even you. You must convey not only that you know this, but that you are eagerly looking forward to it and the experiences that you will have on the way.

Now, we all have internal biases. At some level, we all think we are better than we are. (If you don’t think this applies to you, read Daniel Kahneman’s excellent book, Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow. Actually, read it anyway.) This is where self-examination comes in. You must think about yourself and how others react to you. You must be honest with yourself in assessing your strengths, weaknesses, and personality. If you find any of the negative characteristics I described above in yourself, kill them. Now. Not only because doing so will help you get a job, but also because it will help you succeed. Getting a job doesn’t mean success – it means living up to the qualities you projected in your interviews. It means to serve. Humbly. No matter how smart you are, everyone for whom you work knows more than you do. And every client knows his or her business and needs far better than you do. Don’t forget this.

I’m sometimes saddened to see a student who I know possesses the right stuff do poorly on the job market. Often this is because the student is the opposite of the one I described two paragraphs ago. She may have the same resume. But she conveys uncertainty about herself, a lack of confidence, doubts about whether the job for which she is interviewing is the job for her. She may be of the quieter type, which can lead an interviewer to conclude that she lacks ambition, she lacks drive. None of this may be true, but if this is what you convey, it’s not going to get you where you want to go. Even if you know it’s not true, please remember that interviewers have only so much time, and they will evaluate you based on what they see, not on what you know about yourselves. So, no matter what your natural inclinations, work on projecting strength, energy, confidence, and ambition. You might not be certain that a particular job is for you, but an interview is not the place to convey your doubts. If you need help, do a mock interview or two with your career services people, a professor, or a friend. And do it until you get it right.

You get the point. So let me turn to a few other dimensions of finding employment. It may sound superficial, but how you present yourself makes a huge difference in your success. As a dean, I have about five seconds to make a good impression on a donor, or an employer, or a pre-law advisor, or a prospective student. That’s what you have, too. And those impressions are created by things you might consider to be so simple as beneath your dignity. They’re not.

In general, people want to hire people like them. So figure out what your prospective employers are like. Rule number one is, don’t offend. Dressing is extremely important. You don’t need to buy the most expensive clothes. But men can’t go wrong with a nice suit that fits well in conservative colors, a white shirt, and a tie and, for women, modest professional clothing with high necklines, sleeves, and conservative skirt lengths. Don’t go to an interview dressed as you would for a nightclub (even a fancy one), or to go on a date (or to find one). You need to look serious, professional, and polished. If you don’t know how to do this, ask a friend or professor who does, or go to the best clothing store in your city and let a salesperson help you (you can always buy the clothes someplace cheaper, but the advice is worth a lot).

If the interview includes, as many do, a meal, mind your manners. Nobody is feeding you because you’re hungry; they want to see your social skills. Seriously. Don’t be the first to grab at the bread, don’t order a drink if others aren’t doing so, and order something you can eat neatly. Spaghetti is an absolute no-no. A chewy steak is a problem, too. No matter what, don’t talk with your mouth full, or chew with your mouth open. I know, I sound ridiculous and you should have learned all this at home. You would be amazed at the stories I hear from hiring partners – so it’s worth my repeating.

Be polite. You may be interviewing for a job, but you are still your prospective employer’s guest. You have no right to be there. So behave as you would in someone else’s house.

Finally, treat your interview preparation as if you were studying for a final exam. Firms like to know that you know who they are before you interview with them, and that you’ve done the work to prepare yourself. That kind of preparation not only is flattering, but it signals to employers the kind of work you’ll do once you’re employed. If you can’t bother to prepare for the interview, they think (justifiably), why should they expect you to be diligent in your work?

In any event, I’ve written enough. You don’t need to follow my advice, of course. But if you don’t, I think you’re going to regret it.

Now get going and find yourselves jobs!

 

The weak law job market is hardly news. And it is important news, especially for people thinking of going to law school. Regrettably, newspapers in the business of selling news have had a tendency to sensationalize the market and, Chicken Little-like, proclaim the sky is falling. The resulting crisis atmosphere has not been helped by some law professors, and even law deans, who would rather make headlines (or increase the readership of their blogs) than tackle the problem on behalf of their students. (Those of you who want to read about this seriously might consider Brian Tamanaha’s book, Failing Law Schools, which, while I think perhaps overly alarmist, and I disagree with a number of its conclusions, is, at least, intelligent, analytical, and somewhat balanced).

I have been hoping to write about the situation for a while (you’ll note it’s been a long time since I’ve last blogged), but really struggled with how to approach it and what I could say that might be useful. I think I’m now in a position to do so, having spent a good portion of the summer traveling to New York, DC, Chicago, and LA (which happen to be significant markets for my students here at Case Western Reserve) to visit hiring partners at about 40 law firms to discuss the opportunities that are available, and ways in which I can help my own students become more attractive candidates.

Let’s start with some basic facts about the crisis. We know that available jobs and average salaries are down. But what you might not know, because the newspapers don’t care to report it, is that the current job market is not unprecedented. An even worse market, at least in terms of available jobs, existed in the early 1990s. (There are more law graduates now, but it’s not clear there are so many as completely to offset the differences in decline. You should also note that considerably fewer law students will graduate over the coming years because of the two-year decline in applications. That will help your employment prospects.)

While jobs were hard to find during that period, I’m willing to bet that all members of the law school classes of 1991, ’92,’93, and ’94 found gainful employment and are well-established in their careers. It was tough, yes. But there was no panic, the kind of frustrating, demoralizing panic that has infected law students throughout the country and in some cases impeded their effectiveness in finding work.

Why no panic? Well, for one, the press hadn’t decided that law schools were the new investment banks, an easy institution to try to tear down. Nor were there bloggers (or at least very many), whose unintermediated access to the public allowed them to proclaim as reality whatever they chose to believe and whose ability to draw attention to themselves by creating a crisis atmosphere was as close as their keyboards.

I don’t deny that the job market is difficult. What frustrates me is the way the situation is being reported, not only overlooking the comparison with the early ‘90s, but also leading law students to despair of their own success. For people who claim to be helping and informing law students and applicants, these writers have significantly damaged their initiative and morale.

There is another factor that lends some legitimacy to the jobs concern, and that is the amount of debt that many law students have accumulated. Serious economic analysis, like Tamanaha’s does create a debt/income ratio that is worth considering in the law school calculus. But even that analysis is short-term, in that we don’t know the future. Will the job market ever again be like the middle 2000s? Probably not. But, then again, in 1992, we didn’t think the job market would ever be like it was in the middle 1980s. We were wrong.

One legitimate concern expressed by those writing about the jobs/debt situation is that a heavy debt load limits career choices. Well, this is perhaps true, although what it really limits is early career choices. (You are being educated for a long career, not your first job.) But I do want to note that this is nothing new. When I graduated from law school in 1981, I had borrowed all of my tuition, and felt (subjectively, of course) that I had to take a high-paying Wall Street job to pay it back. That, however, was a choice. I could have chosen perhaps to struggle more in order to work at a lower-paying job of my dreams. (I did that in 1987 when I entered law teaching and, still in debt, and with a new baby, saw my salary plunge by two-thirds).

So I’ll conclude today with several summary points: (1) The job market is bad. There have been worse. (2) Jobs remain, especially for students at any law school who possess the entire set of qualities for which the hiring partners tell me they are looking. (This will be the subject of my next blog). (3) We cannot tell the future. Bad job markets have dramatically improved in the past. It may or may not this time but, as I’ve written before, a legal education still provides you with remarkable skills that are transferable across a wide range of careers and makes success in those careers possible. (4) Debt is high for many students, and will burden you for some time. We all make choices, including the choice of balancing income with job satisfaction – ask any law professor or happy public interest lawyer. Having to make hard choices about your life is nothing new.

So, the job situation is bad. That fact requires some hard thinking, but it doesn’t require panic. What it does demand is that you become strategic in searching for jobs, treating your job search as, in effect, another course.

In my next post, I’ll discuss some of the ways you can be successful in this market, including what I’ve learned from hiring partners around the country. It might surprise you. It might also help you get a good job.