I definitely think flexibility is a key issue for us as we enter the legal work force and I think a number of big name law firms are realizing it too. A few of the partners I met with over break from two of these big firms specifically addressed the problem of over-specialization in most big firms. One partner told me about his friend who was a specialist in one particular statute pertaining to real estate in California and was out of a job because the Californian legislature basically decided to get rid of it. Both firms recently implemented new programs to train their incoming junior associates to have a broader range of expertise even if it’s within one practice area/group.

That said, I agree with Barb that the “brokering” task of lawyers is here for the long run. A lot of information is open to the public for its use, but people lack the resources (time, money in the form of lost wages, maybe education, etc.) or maybe the patience to sift through all the information and figure things out. They can probably get the answers eventually, but as Barb said, probably not in the fashion or capacity of that of a trained attorney.

Finally, regarding Justin’s statement that “pedigree won't matter as much as what you can do for your clients,” I agree that in the end, clients really care about results. In fact, it has been that way for a long time. One can just look to the partners of big firms. Most of the partners I met with actually went to lower ranked or local schools. The way you make partner, they say, is by building your own “book” of clients. That is, you have to be business-savvy and be able to carry your clients. Nonetheless, these partners seemed to want to hire people from top law schools instead of more people with their similar educational background. (Maybe because we’re easier to program into work-machines who won’t steal their clients?) Anyway, my point was that regardless of what causes their predilections and what not, as brand new attorneys just starting off, there will be a certain market of employers who will give us jobs. Even with the fall of big firms, I cannot imagine a completely unorganized mass of single attorney offices and I cannot imagine anyone setting up shop fresh out of law school. Where will all the partners with their preferences for ivy-educated lawyers go after the fall? They will probably set up some sorts of practice groups. Someone has got to hire/work for or with others even with the fall of big firms.

-- ChristinaYoun - 23 Jan 2008

Adam, I don't want to appear to be jumping on you again, but your analysis might change if you look at the legal practice options as being broader than the ability to predict what courts will do. Most attorneys never interact with courts or court personnel and are not involved in the litigation process from any angle. Law school curriculum is focused on building analytical skills in the first year by analyzing court cases and learning the federal court process, but most attorneys never professionally steps foot in a courtroom after being "sworn in" to practice law. Many attorneys instead "broker" information and predictions with regards to governmental agencies, other private entities, the legislature, the body politic, the election process (predicting/supporting election outcomes), other law firms, defined community and private interest groups, and the press. There's just way too much information out there that is best assessed first-hand from an experientially-intuitive process and that is coming from a number of disparate places for the average person (or some overseas lawyer) to attain both the "predictability quotient" and knowledge of the law necessary to confidently assess every area in which that would-be client may have a legal or quasi-legal interest. In other words, while the type and nature of lawyering needs may change (just look at IP), the need for on-site, informed lawyers will always exist in some capacity. Consequently, in my opinion, the legal/informational "brokerage" part of lawyering will always be viable in some form in the United States. Justin's point about being flexible hits on this.

-- BarbPitman - 23 Jan 2008

I think that is pretty accurate, Justin. The only way, obviously, that is not so is if the "death of firms" actually means the death of lawyering in that individuals, armed with access to information, education, and some great computer software can do about as good as you or I when it comes to researching the law or constructing arguments. Then, instead of being the lawyers we will likely be reduced to nothing more than signatories for our client's briefs. While I don't see that happening any time soon, who can predict?

Even still, flexibility will remain important. If we truly are able to shape peoples thoughts, reasoning, and actions using our words then there will always be market for those of us who can do it well.

-- AdamCarlis - 23 Jan 2008

-- JustinColannino - 23 Jan 2008

The only possible flaw in that analysis is if the same factor that destroys big firms does so by democratizing information to such an extent that developing the ability to predict what courts will do becomes attainable to the average person. Then, you wouldn't need a lawyer at all (it would be like if we developed a kangaroo-style pouch, causing the market for bags to plummet).

-- AdamCarlis - 23 Jan 2008