« Sopranos Future | Main | Political Action by Blog »
Legal Job Market: Not Good
Should people now applying to law school be discouraged by news that firms are refusing to hire through recruiters? I mean, I don't really want to work for a firm, so this wouldn't directly affect me, but it's certainly not a positive signal for the legal job market overall. Neither is the fact that this year's LSAT will be taken by perhaps 40% more "candidates" than took the test two years ago. Ugh.
[Link via Held in Contempt, who carries a Powerpuff Girls keychain and recently purchased new shoes. These are good things. Who said lawyers don't have character? Oh, and since I'm way out on a tangent now, have you seen that Discover card ad featuring the lawyer in search of someone who doesn't find him boring? I propose a new tagline for law-school recruiters: "Become a lawyer—you'll never be the life of the party but you will be the butt of every joke!" At least it might improve the job market a bit by decreasing the number of people who want to become lawyers? Nevermind. It hasn't worked so far...
Posted October 8, 2002 01:11 PM | law school
The fact that legal employers are less willing to rely on recruiters to bring in new employees does not mean that the market is dead, but it does mean that it is a bit weaker. The proportion of qualified candidates to open positions has increased.
Personally, had I known that the market would be this way when I was applying for law schools, I might have had second thoughts. However, it's hard to find all sorts of jobs these days. My chances are still better then they would have been had I gotten a Ph.D. in philosophy (which was one of my options). Aviation and technological industries -- other interests of mine -- aren't faring too well these days, either.
When a firm hires an attorney through a recruiter, it must pay a finder's fee to the recruiter. From what I hear, the fee is often established as a percentage of the attorney's first-year salary, and the percentages are not small. In some scenarios, it is the employee who pays a placement agent. Either way, firms will take the opportunity to avoid the middleman unless the screening that the headhunter provides is really worth that kind of expense.
Right now, firms don't need help finding qualified candidates because qualified candidates are plentiful relative to demand. It's also arguably better to hire individuals who don't have to pay placement fees on their own because then you can hire people who actually get the full benefit of the salary the employer pays -- which one hopes will result in happier employees.
Those are just a few thoughts from a presently-unemployed almost-attorney.
Posted by: tph at October 8, 2002 10:58 PM
