-- DavidGarfinkel - 03 Feb 2010 This is the first topic I am starting here outside my introduction, so bear with any trial and error that goes into it. One of the major themes or bullet points of the class is how the vast majority of law students go through law school to pawn their license they receive upon passing the bar. For the purposes of this topic, I assuming that the pawn shop refers mostly, if not entirely, to the large NY law firms, many of which have been visiting our campus lately.

Why should you assume? I have explained what I mean and this isn't it.

So for the goal of this topic, as well as possibly my own mental well being, is to discuss why so many students "pawn their license" to a large law firm and what are the consequences, both positive and negative, of doing so. Before embarking on the substantive portion of this topic, I do want to try to lay out some stipulations or rules that should hopefully help our conversation for the betterment of the class. This is by no means an agreement with the professor or a judgment upon the industry or the decisions students make. I personally am considering going to one of these firms, though I am frankly to be honest not completely sure what I want to do. I imagine many of you have very similar feelings, especially as we are searching for summer jobs and looking at our first semester grades. So no one should be afraid to be honest about their view or ideas about the system and career, and no one should condemn anyone for it. This conversation will involve an element of conjecture, which the professor may need to help clear, but what this should not turn into is a bashfest of the firm system that is deeply entwined in our education and decisions, or a dumping ground for articles solely on how bad, evil, or tortuous such "pawn shops" are.

You can decide here what you want to say and what you want to edit, but I don't think you can reasonably decide what other people ought to say.

So everyone should feel free to give their opinion, which can be supported by articles they find, whether from firm rankings to career guides to recent NY Times articles as well as quotes from speakers or representatives that we may hear from at special panels or receptions. The following discussion should follow two main threads. First, why do so many students choose to go to a large law firm and spend at least a significant portion (subjective, from 1 year to 5 years to a lifetime) of their life there? Second, what are the positives and negatives, in a variety of contexts, to going to working at these firms? In the following, I will give my own preliminary thoughts about these questions, that will hopefully be added onto later.

First, why do so many students choose to go to such pawn shops. Part of it may be the underlying structure of law school. Many do feel and argue that law schools like Columbia tend to orient their students towards going to a large corporate firm. We can see this by the presence firms have at our school, from guest speaker to career panels and events, such as OCI. However, I believe it is safe to say that students are fully aware that there are other career paths that can be taken. Before entering law school, most students have some contact with "Law and Order," and thus should be aware of potential jobs in government and defense. The increasing presence of advocacy and public interest work in college present other career paths. I believe I heard more about public interest, discussed explicitly so by I believe Professor Shaw, at orientation than about the traditional route taken by student. So do students enter law school with the path in mind, or does the school orient them toward it. How much does finances play into it? It is true that most of us will be burdened with large student loans, so do we choose that path simply to pay them off, especially when we can pay them off other ways. Is the route we take proportionate to the amount of burden we have? A consideration to take is that the loans we have now may seem like nothing compared to loans we take out for cars, mortgages, and our children. What is the validity to such thinking. Do students go to such firms simply for the prospect of making a large amount of money, unaware of the actual earnings per hour, or that they could have similar wealth in government (through benefits and stability) or working is a smaller firm or running their own firm. I do not believe we are a greedy generation as many try to make us out to be, nor are we naive to believe that we should be satisfied with just the simple things. So how much does the prospect of wealth play into such decisions. Do many students choose to go to such shops with career goals in mind, but end up getting trapped. These I hope will be difficult questions that will elicit an informative debate and commentary. Do students choose such paths b/c they are ill informed. I don't mean that they are stupid or blind. What I want to say is that we are forced to choose a career after only a year of law school, having not really taken any of the substantive classes that demonstrate what type of field we want to practice, and maybe have worked one summer in an extremely limited market that probably is not really representative of any career. So is the career process, where we are in a way forced to choose at EIP, contribute to such a mindset. I can only give some of my own initial beliefs and reasons that I am considering such a career. I think it may be the best route toward what I want to do, which I am not fully sure about, and a means of wealth and prestige, and I have not really found a cause out there that so burns my passion to devote myself to.

Second, what are the consequences of going to such firms. I believe that it is very hard to get an objective view in class. We have read the NY Times article and hear stories. This is the place to share such articles and anecdotes we hear from relatives, friends, and people we talk to while at Columbia. Moglen has told us some of the negatives of working at such places. I think it would be equally instructive and meaningful to continue to list and elaborate on such negatives, but also list what are the potential positives. Here we do not make judgments or attack people for their remarks. Believing that everyone must always pursue and care about justice I think is naive and an over generalization. Doing something just for the money is just as good as doing something just for the good it causes.

What does "just as good" mean?

Some mathematics may help flesh out some of the rewards here. At this point, I am not fully sure what the consequences will be beyond what we are told by those working in the firm and the horror stories I have heard. Right now I am a bit tired of writing and would like to leave this thread of discussion more open.

Hopefully students, including myself, will be able to add to this and come back and edit so that by the end of the semester, and before our true job search, we have a collaborative effort that helps us understand the ideas and though processes that make us and fellow students want to follow certain career paths and what is the true consequences of those choices.

Way too long. At 1300 words, this piece is at least three times longer than it can afford to be. Substantive discussion is almost pointless, though I've made some remarks above. But you can't write blowsy prose like this around here. Tighten up by dropping unnecessary sentences first. Then go back and begin simplifying the ones that do have to be there until they say exactly what they mean in the fewest possible words.

To guide the revision, you might ask "What was the message I intended to convey here? What idea had I that I wanted to communicate?" At present, the idea most evident is that there are positive things to be said about pawning your license. This is self-evidently true. Also that it is naive and over-generalizing to demand that the work of lawyers be about pursuing justice, because doing things just for the money is just as good as doing them for the public good. This idea is not self-evidently true, and in fact I begin by thinking that it is balderdash, but perhaps if the unnecessary material were cut away and a hundred or so words devoted to showing why you believe this proposition to be true, we could understand where the issues really are and others could more effectively join in.