It was the wrong thread

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Three amusing takeaways.

1. Who in the industry didn't see this coming seven to ten years ago? That could only accrue from willful ignorance or blissful self-delusion.

I wish I could say I saw it coming -- I thought it was my firm.

2. Why is this only focused on big firms? Medium sized firms are also getting hammered.

Because they have journalists who cover them, so a writer from TNR can start with the reporting other people have done.

3. When was law - big, small, or medium, all practice specialties - a collegial, communal environment, in which people were more interested in being part of a "profession" than making money like any other business?

Law firm dynamics were surely very, very different before partners learned what they could be making at other law firms and started jumping around.

And the irony of discussing that on this board is not lost on me.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Law firm dynamics were surely very, very different before partners learned what they could be making at other law firms and started jumping around.

And the irony of discussing that on this board is not lost on me.

my first big law seemed a very nice place to be a partner. the partners weren't told what other partners billed, nor their books, so they could hardly in fight. there was a guy with a corner office who had basically written Mi. condo law 20 years before, had enormous billings and got the corner. then the field turned into commodity. when I was there he sat in that corner office doing nothing. he billed 800 hours (we were just starting to learn what others did).

point is, mid 80s things were friendly!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Law firm dynamics were surely very, very different before partners learned what they could be making at other law firms and started jumping around.

And the irony of discussing that on this board is not lost on me.

One of the great things about having departed Biglaw for a boutique is that I have to work pretty hard to get myself to really care about the pending demise of these places. I mean, the problem isn't that the lives of the Biglaw partners are bleak and miserly because they need to make iBanker amounts or that they're failing to reproduce themselves and so populate the world with more baby reptiles. The problems are that Biglaw increasingly sucks at providing quality legal services because they are more focused on their own needs than their clients'; and that Biglaw's main need is the soak clients by ginning unnecessary or fabricated hours constantly.

There is always a simple option for a good lawyer - find some compatriots, do some good work, treat clients fairly, and money that is really pretty damn good by any reasonable standards, though perhaps not enough to average $1.5M ppp. All these whiners are choosing the life they complain about.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There is always a simple option for a good lawyer - find some compatriots, do some good work, treat clients fairly, and money that is really pretty damn good by any reasonable standards, though perhaps not enough to average $1.5M ppp. All these whiners are choosing the life they complain about.

there were people at my last biglaw that saw themselves as parallel to me, and they would talk about doing this, but most of them get unhappy at one BL and jump to another, too chicken to try and make it. They somehow fail to realize 1) they have now quit several BL firms, and found them repugnant, and 2) even if the boutique crashes and burns, every BL would hire them (patent being a field marketable to these hell holes) so there is no real risk

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

there were people at my last biglaw that saw themselves as parallel to me, and they would talk about doing this, but most of them get unhappy at one BL and jump to another, too chicken to try and make it. They somehow fail to realize 1) they have now quit several BL firms, and found them repugnant, and 2) even if the boutique crashes and burns, every BL would hire them (patent being a field marketable to these hell holes) so there is no real risk

It took me a while to realize it. But, several years out now, I can't help but laugh at the whining.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

One of the great things about having departed Biglaw for a boutique is that I have to work pretty hard to get myself to really care about the pending demise of these places. I mean, the problem isn't that the lives of the Biglaw partners are bleak and miserly because they need to make iBanker amounts or that they're failing to reproduce themselves and so populate the world with more baby reptiles. The problems are that Biglaw increasingly sucks at providing quality legal services because they are more focused on their own needs than their clients'; and that Biglaw's main need is the soak clients by ginning unnecessary or fabricated hours constantly.

There is always a simple option for a good lawyer - find some compatriots, do some good work, treat clients fairly, and money that is really pretty damn good by any reasonable standards, though perhaps not enough to average $1.5M ppp. All these whiners are choosing the life they complain about.

It's not just law. Commoditization is savaging professionals in every industry. The bean counters rule all, and they are unbeatable because, what's the argument against them? There is no rational near term argument against a ruthless rush to optimal efficiency. The only argument is a long term one: That sooner or later, nobody will be able to afford what's being produced so damn efficiently. And nobody in a position to make a difference has ever given a fuck about the long term.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's not just law. Commoditization is savaging professionals in every industry. The bean counters rule all, and they are unbeatable because, what's the argument against them? There is no rational near term argument against a ruthless rush to optimal efficiency. The only argument is a long term one: That sooner or later, nobody will be able to afford what's being produced so damn efficiently. And nobody in a position to make a difference has ever given a fuck about the long term.

I was at the annual outside counsel meeting for my biggest client, and their outside counsel laison was explaining that document review should never been done by a lawyer, and typically should be done somewhere like India.

All I could do was think of how many more years adder has until he can retire.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I was at the annual outside counsel meeting for my biggest client, and their outside counsel laison was explaining that document review should never been done by a lawyer, and typically should be done somewhere like India.

I would say that this person has no idea what they are talking about, at least with respect to cases that involve real stakes. I've seen firms and clients take that sort of attitude toward documents, and I've seen how it can cripple them in the ability to wrangle evidence to support their arguments.

I worked on a fairly high stakes case with Howrey representing the other party to the deal. As far as we could tell, there were 8 Howrey partners on the case and two associates. Not surprisingly, nearly all of the actual documentary evidence (that proved successful) came out of our doc review, which was supervised by actual lawyers. Maybe you don't need lawyers doing the first review, but sending it to India to be supervised by people who don't know the case is significantly handicapping your case.

But of course, there is no reason why you need to pay a 30% or more premium to have your case handled on a coast either.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's not just law. Commoditization is savaging professionals in every industry. The bean counters rule all, and they are unbeatable because, what's the argument against them? There is no rational near term argument against a ruthless rush to optimal efficiency. The only argument is a long term one: That sooner or later, nobody will be able to afford what's being produced so damn efficiently. And nobody in a position to make a difference has ever given a fuck about the long term.

All but a handful of people I know are working two professional jobs per household to afford what is relatively* a upper-middle class lifestyle that my parents managed on one salary. When the first 40% of the smaller salary is going to childcare expenses (and convenience foods etc.), many of us are just treading water from a 1980 SoL on one salary. People in my office who started 25 years before me had vacation homes on one salary.

*In absolute terms it's hard to say whether a 2013 household with broadband and four monthly cell phone bills is middle class since the middle class household of 1980 would regard it as more than luxurious — it would be an unattainable marvel.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

All but a handful of people I know are working two professional jobs per household to afford what is relatively* a upper-middle class lifestyle that my parents managed on one salary. When the first 40% of the smaller salary is going to childcare expenses (and convenience foods etc.), many of us are just treading water from a 1980 SoL on one salary. People in my office who started 25 years before me had vacation homes on one salary.

*In absolute terms it's hard to say whether a 2013 household with broadband and four monthly cell phone bills is middle class since the middle class household of 1980 would regard it as more than luxurious — it would be an unattainable marvel.

It feels that way, but it isn't true. You're consuming significantly more and better quality stuff than your equivalents in 1980 were. Cell phone and broadband, obviously, but also vastly higher quality cars, more fresh food (assuming you do that), better restaurants, higher quality and larger homes, etc.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Adder

higher quality and larger homes, etc.

bwaHAHAHAHAHAHA

ETA I do take your point as to the rest.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

bwaHAHAHAHAHAHA

Perhaps your home is not higher quality and larger, but I'm fairly certain the average home is.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

bwaHAHAHAHAHAHA

ETA I do take your point as to the rest.

I've had cause in the last two days to look at the real estate market in the Peninsula and I think I can afford to live in East Palo Alto. Maybe.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

All but a handful of people I know are working two professional jobs per household to afford what is relatively* a upper-middle class lifestyle that my parents managed on one salary. When the first 40% of the smaller salary is going to childcare expenses (and convenience foods etc.), many of us are just treading water from a 1980 SoL on one salary. People in my office who started 25 years before me had vacation homes on one salary.

*In absolute terms it's hard to say whether a 2013 household with broadband and four monthly cell phone bills is middle class since the middle class household of 1980 would regard it as more than luxurious — it would be an unattainable marvel.

If you set aside the revenue side of the equation for your typical family and just look at the expenses, what is more expensive than it was in 1980? In an area like the one you live in, I would imagine that housing has gotten progressively more expensive since WWII. For a long time after the war, you could throw up suburban housing all over the place, so scarcity wasn't a problem. Now you can't do that, and everyone pays more and more for the land (as opposed to the buildings on it).

The obvious answer is to build denser housing, but local zoning prevents that. So instead you see bungalows torn down to build monster houses -- but both are single-family houses.

I hope you appreciate my efforts to turn this conversation to local land use law.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

All but a handful of people I know are working two professional jobs per household to afford what is relatively* a upper-middle class lifestyle that my parents managed on one salary. When the first 40% of the smaller salary is going to childcare expenses (and convenience foods etc.), many of us are just treading water from a 1980 SoL on one salary. People in my office who started 25 years before me had vacation homes on one salary.

*In absolute terms it's hard to say whether a 2013 household with broadband and four monthly cell phone bills is middle class since the middle class household of 1980 would regard it as more than luxurious — it would be an unattainable marvel.

Everything's relative. Broadband and cell phones are cheap necessities of the modern age. The presence of gadgets (and the false suggestion cheap tech innovation is its own unique form of wealth) doesn't undo the fact that the breadwinner in that household is getting crushed by the "middle class squeeze."

Wall Street assholes love the argument that quality of life measured by things like cable, a washer/dryer in the home, and car ownership is proof financialization has brought society immense riches. Fuck these people. Seriously. Seat them on the horn of that brass bull outside the NYSE and twist them on it until their eyes bleed. Wealth isn't cheap shit on credit. Wealth is freedom, and freedom derives from having cash in your pocket with which you can choose your own path, rather than be another debt serf in hoc, ultimately, to Wall Street.

All this said, I am not against the financial sector fucking people over, or turning them into debt serfs. If you can be duped, tough shit on you. But what I am very much against, and everyone ought to be, is sophistry. And the argument the middle class is better off now because Jackass Bank will loan them enough, at 13%, compounded monthly, to have a "professional grade" outdoor grill, or surround sound system, than they were when they weren't living paycheck to paycheck, is fucking bullshit. Steal if you like, but be fucking honest about it.