B-Scale Lawyers

If the lawyer adds more value to the product than the summation of the final bill, I'd say it's worth it. I mean would you ever want the 2nd best lawyer? I hope not because that means your opponent could hire the best.

My wife practices immigration which is unique for a couple of reasons. One is the presence of "notorios". These are non-lawyers who will fill out your immigration work and give you advice (illegally) for far less than your immigration attorney would. The other problem is attorneys in other practice areas attempting immigration cases because their business is slow. Each can completely F your chances of gaining legal status in the United States - in ways that are sometimes irreversible.

While $200 an hours seems like a lot (my wife bills less than that), what is it worth to have an order of removal overturned? What is it worth to be able to legally stay in the same country as your children? My wife has seen many prospective clients who've gone the cheaper route, only to have their paperwork screwed up to the point that they are now absolutely not eligible for legal U.S. status ... ever. She's also worked with clients who've gone to family law attorneys, who took their money, and then lost the case because they didn't know the law. My wife will often win on behalf of those clients, or if she knows there is no case, she'll at least tell them to keep their money.

Just the other day a guy called her with a question. He was a citizen with a non-citizen wife. The short story is, he called a half dozen attorneys - all of whom said that he needed to hire them to keep his wife in the country. Except my wife, who told him he didn't have to do anything at all, and his wife would be fine.

Value is very relative is my point.
 
that's like asking who in his right might would pay 50$+ an hour for a flight instructor. If an attorney is charging less than 150/hr I would wonder why he is undercutting his fellow attorneys.

I'd gladly pay $50/hr for a lawyer. Why would they undercut? Probably so average people could actually afford one.
 
He did that because he wanted to make partner and make a lot of money, and apparently that's what you have to do in the lawyer business. Lots of money and lots of time off don't generally go together.

I wouldn't consider this "B-scale" for lawyers. The lower pay comes lower expectation. Contrast that with airline b-scales, where he b-scalers were expected to do everything the a-scalers were, but for less money.

That's true - my wife is a 5-year associate, but she's fine with her sub-average attorney salary. She's fine with it because she works 35-hours a week and can get time off whenever she needs it. You can certainly put a price on QOL.
 
I'd gladly pay $50/hr for a lawyer. Why would they undercut? Probably so average people could actually afford one.

As I said - many times it's because they either don't have the same experience, or they don't specialize in the area you're hiring them for. There are a lot of bad attorneys out there. A lot.
 
I wouldn't consider this "B-scale" for lawyers. The lower pay comes lower expectation. Contrast that with airline b-scales, where he b-scalers were expected to do everything the a-scalers were, but for less money.

I agree, this isn't really B-scale for lawyers. A closer analogy would be if legacy carrier told a 737 FO, "We'll pay you 45% of your current rate on the 737. You'll fly only 55-75 hours per month instead of 75-95 hours per month, with no continuous duty overnights. However, you're never going to get a raise and you'll going to be limited to flying a Caravan to and from the same two airports under VFR conditions for the rest of your time with this airline." Not a horrible deal, but a dead end.

These jobs have existed at big law firms for decades. I'm guessing the NY Times is writing an article about it now because the writer has a buddy who took such a job. As for lawyers' hourly rates, the law firms referenced in the article are big. They represent very large companies, like airlines. The complexity and value of their clients' legal matters usually justifies rates well north of $200/hour. Everyone thinks lawyers are overpaid until they need legal advice about a "bet the company" decision or a "bet your freedom from jail" decision.
 
I agree, this isn't really B-scale for lawyers. A closer analogy would be if legacy carrier told a 737 FO, "We'll pay you 45% of your current rate on the 737. You'll fly only 55-75 hours per month instead of 75-95 hours per month, with no continuous duty overnights. However, you're never going to get a raise and you'll going to be limited to flying a Caravan to and from the same two airports under VFR conditions for the rest of your time with this airline." Not a horrible deal, but a dead end.

These jobs have existed at big law firms for decades. I'm guessing the NY Times is writing an article about it now because the writer has a buddy who took such a job. As for lawyers' hourly rates, the law firms referenced in the article are big. They represent very large companies, like airlines. The complexity and value of their clients' legal matters usually justifies rates well north of $200/hour. Everyone thinks lawyers are overpaid until they need legal advice about a "bet the company" decision or a "bet your freedom from jail" decision.

Agreed - I always laugh when I see on Craigslist someone posting something like "I need a lawyer who will work for cheap. My wife took our child out of state and I need someone to help me get them back"

Well Jesus, I guess it's not that important to you, is it?
 
As I said - many times it's because they either don't have the same experience, or they don't specialize in the area you're hiring them for. There are a lot of bad attorneys out there. A lot.

And that's why a lot can't get good representation. Cheap ones are bad and good ones charge outrageous amounts per hour.
 
As we controllers used to say to those who would listen: The A scale gets you the Hudson; the B scale gets you Buffalo.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.
 
So...

100k+ Debt - 60K Starting Pay
100k+ Debt (for some that are misinformed enough to do it) - 20K Starting Pay

Yep, our profession still sucks the best.
 
I'll add my .02 in here.

Only a tiny fraction of lawyers make that money. In reality many law school grads never work as a lawyer, if they ever pass the bar -- the number of legal jobs lags number of grads by about 40%. That's right: most "lawyers" are unemployed and never actually work as a lawyer, believe it or not. Most lawyers do not make big bucks, and a $60k position would draw 100s of resumes within hours. Any "B-Scale" job opening would have so many resumes submitted it would boggle the mind.

Here's the actual salary distribution for new lawyers, as you can see $40k is not uncommon. http://cache.abovethelaw.com/uploads/2010/07/NALP-class-of-2009-salary-curve.jpg What's deceiving from that graph is remember, that shows only the top 60% or so of new lawyers who actually have jobs, the other 40% never even got a first job and are working at a grocery store/starbucks.

Lawyers also have to spend way more time in school and have to have nearly perfect college and law school grades to get a job. Pilots get to do something they, at least at one time, love(d).

The grass is always greener -- enjoy *your* pasture wherever you find it.
 
You'd hope so, but look what happened with the advent of the RJ. It transformed time-building, puddle-jumping pilots into 1,200NM stage length jet drivers (no knock on regional guys at all, just the "creep" that occurred in regional flying). The "scope" of legal work needs to be clearly defined to keep those expectations lower.

That's a backwards way of looking at it. Regional airlines weren't created to employ pilots. Pilots were employed to create regional airlines. The RJ caused the "regional" airline industry to evolve so much that I think the term "regional airline" no longer has any meaning. They are now "small jet providers." It's a fundamental shift in the industry, but the essentials of a pilot's job description haven't changed much. You move a plane from A to B safely and efficienlty. It just so happens that A and B are now a lot further apart. But that's ok, because the airplane is also a lot faster.

Likewise, the lawyer's job description hasn't changed, just the conditions under which the lawyer does the work. This alternate lawyer career track may do for the lawyer field what the RJ did for air transportation: make the product available to people who otherwise would not have had access to it, and thus new job opportunities for those in the profession.
 
That's a backwards way of looking at it. Regional airlines weren't created to employ pilots. Pilots were employed to create regional airlines. The RJ caused the "regional" airline industry to evolve so much that I think the term "regional airline" no longer has any meaning. They are now "small jet providers." It's a fundamental shift in the industry, but the essentials of a pilot's job description haven't changed much. You move a plane from A to B safely and efficienlty. It just so happens that A and B are now a lot further apart. But that's ok, because the airplane is also a lot faster.

Likewise, the lawyer's job description hasn't changed, just the conditions under which the lawyer does the work. This alternate lawyer career track may do for the lawyer field what the RJ did for air transportation: make the product available to people who otherwise would not have had access to it, and thus new job opportunities for those in the profession.


Good points. As much as I wish the world worked differently for pilots, I'm a believer in supply and demand. That being said, look what also happens with the outsourcing of mainline routes to cheaper service providers: customer service tends to take a nose-dive (again, this has nothing to do with the pilots or FAs working for such regionals). It's amazing to see a regional airline cancel flight A for carrier A because it's short on planes and can make more money by flying flight B for carrier B instead. Or, to remain competitive, watch a regional gain approval to further space out service checks and lose the ability to be proactive in fixing maintenance discrepancies. No, the safety of flight isn't necessarily affected, but a squawk that was usually caught on the 3-day check has now led to a cancellation in the middle of a six leg day.


Will a firm now delegate certain cases/issues to cheaper labor in an effort to reap higher profits? Will such cheaper labor have the time and tools necessary to prepare such cases the same way a partner would?


J.

PS - you're certainly right that such moves result in more people having access to such services.
 
As we controllers used to say to those who would listen: The A scale gets you the Hudson; the B scale gets you Buffalo.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

Firstly, I'd say that's a pretty dickheaded thing to say.

Secondly, while I agree with the relative nature of your comparison, I'd be judicious in my use of the term 'A-Scale'. Sully, despite his wealth of experience, and despite what we think he should have earned, had his pay slashed by upwards of 40% over his career.

Surely, at the top of your game in any professional career, you'd be looking to make at least twice what Sully made on his US salary.

Regards to lawyers - those coming from a tier 1 law school can expect to make 90-100k a year outside NYC/LA. This is in commercial law, which despite the high price tag, does save companies tens of millions in each transaction. Potential earnings are huge, if you want to sacrifice everything else.

Where I also think that the industry comparison is flawed, is because the top firms want the brightest stars, who are capable of using their legal sophistication to achieve goals based on their own supposed brilliance. Pilots are there to follow the ops manual. Yes, I know about the 'what ifs' and so forth, but ultimately, statistics speak for themselves. A being an airline pilot leaves nigh-on zero room for personal flair and expression.
 
I don't think Polar 742 was trying to create an exact parallel between law school and flight school. I think he was more trying to show that the major/regional business model is not unique to aviation. You do the same work, but top out at a far lower salary.

The analogy between doctors and PA's is a little different, because PA's are not qualified to act as doctors.
 
The analogy between doctors and PA's is a little different, because PA's are not qualified to act as doctors.

I would argue that the AMA made sure this was the case, and why some physicians are upset about DNPs being able to establish their own practices.
 
Back
Top