HLS LLMs and JOBS


gar33

BTW, I have no intention of working in the US either as a scholar or a lawyer for a long period. After the LL.M. I might join the S.J.D Program and probably that's it.

BTW, I have no intention of working in the US either as a scholar or a lawyer for a long period. After the LL.M. I might join the S.J.D Program and probably that's it.

quote
coco

No hard feelings gar. Simply put, it is a chronological fact that a JD with 7 years of university education and summer internships/clerkships would be more attractive to an employer. This is not to say that a 22 year old (my choice of age was not intentionally directed at you) isn't brilliant or capable, it's just a fact that employers view work and educational experiences as the key factors in determining who they hire.

No hard feelings gar. Simply put, it is a chronological fact that a JD with 7 years of university education and summer internships/clerkships would be more attractive to an employer. This is not to say that a 22 year old (my choice of age was not intentionally directed at you) isn't brilliant or capable, it's just a fact that employers view work and educational experiences as the key factors in determining who they hire.
quote
Cindy

May I add 2 points in this thread.

First, yes it is possible that an American law firm will hire, let say, a LLM from Fordham, instead of a LLM from Harvard. Why? Because what it matters most for a foreign LLM student wanted to work in the US is work experience. Otherwise the law firm will not bother with a LLM; it will chose a JD. By the way, someone can be a brillant student, but not necessarily a brillant lawyer. I noticed that some law schools would prefer having someone who was first in his class, but without experience than someone who was "only" three with a lot of interesting experiences. They want to have brillant students. I do not think that law firms will make the same choice if they consider hiring a foreign LLM student because their needs are not the same.

Second, concerning age, I can understand that someone in his/her early 20s wants to do a LLM because he/she wants to deepen his/her knowledge and he/she is interested in research/teaching. Otherwise, I would say it is better to wait to have some experience. Not just to increase one's chances to find a job in the US, but because in my views, it is nice to work a few years and make a break for one year of study. Personally, I do not have the same perspective now compared to when I was a student. Plus I enjoy now to go back to school after having seen the "real world" (it is a real break). Finally, an experienced person will be able to share his/her experiences in law and it is what I also look for during my LLM.

Just a final thought, some LLMs are more practical than the others and this must also be taken into account in one's choice of law school. I am ready to pay a lot of money for my LLM only if the chosen LLM will fill my personal needs. Not everyone is interested in research or teaching. For a person in my situation, it would not be wise to go for example to Yale, even if it is a great school. To chose a school is a little bit more complicated than looking at reputation.

May I add 2 points in this thread.

First, yes it is possible that an American law firm will hire, let say, a LLM from Fordham, instead of a LLM from Harvard. Why? Because what it matters most for a foreign LLM student wanted to work in the US is work experience. Otherwise the law firm will not bother with a LLM; it will chose a JD. By the way, someone can be a brillant student, but not necessarily a brillant lawyer. I noticed that some law schools would prefer having someone who was first in his class, but without experience than someone who was "only" three with a lot of interesting experiences. They want to have brillant students. I do not think that law firms will make the same choice if they consider hiring a foreign LLM student because their needs are not the same.

Second, concerning age, I can understand that someone in his/her early 20s wants to do a LLM because he/she wants to deepen his/her knowledge and he/she is interested in research/teaching. Otherwise, I would say it is better to wait to have some experience. Not just to increase one's chances to find a job in the US, but because in my views, it is nice to work a few years and make a break for one year of study. Personally, I do not have the same perspective now compared to when I was a student. Plus I enjoy now to go back to school after having seen the "real world" (it is a real break). Finally, an experienced person will be able to share his/her experiences in law and it is what I also look for during my LLM.

Just a final thought, some LLMs are more practical than the others and this must also be taken into account in one's choice of law school. I am ready to pay a lot of money for my LLM only if the chosen LLM will fill my personal needs. Not everyone is interested in research or teaching. For a person in my situation, it would not be wise to go for example to Yale, even if it is a great school. To chose a school is a little bit more complicated than looking at reputation.
quote
sachin

I would like to add that I am 22 also. In the UK, almost all legal employers are looking for recent graduates and I believe the case is the same in the US. Being 'experienced' is something you would have to justfify rather than be arrogant about. Leaders in both professions have told me that what they are looking for is dynamic, intelligent, recent graduates. One thing I certainly would agree with is that the LLM is not a dream ticket to a job on Wall Street...they are relly looking for JD'rs....but clearly we'll be looking to lap up the 2400 bucks a week internships.

I would like to add that I am 22 also. In the UK, almost all legal employers are looking for recent graduates and I believe the case is the same in the US. Being 'experienced' is something you would have to justfify rather than be arrogant about. Leaders in both professions have told me that what they are looking for is dynamic, intelligent, recent graduates. One thing I certainly would agree with is that the LLM is not a dream ticket to a job on Wall Street...they are relly looking for JD'rs....but clearly we'll be looking to lap up the 2400 bucks a week internships.
quote
Cindy

I do not think I was arrogant. I do not understand your saying about your "justify part of your message".
What I can say is that I have already worked in the US. And you will see by yourself...
Do not forget a LLM is not a JD. You really need to put something on the table.

I do not think I was arrogant. I do not understand your saying about your "justify part of your message".
What I can say is that I have already worked in the US. And you will see by yourself...
Do not forget a LLM is not a JD. You really need to put something on the table.
quote
hannenyh

Sachin: You cannot seriously mean that work experience is a disadvantage? That is some serious BS! I am pretty sure it is easier for an LLM student to secure a good job if you already have some work experience. Some firms do look for recent graduates with good grades and all that, but they ALSO look for people with work experience. So to have experience for sure makes it easier.

Sachin: You cannot seriously mean that work experience is a disadvantage? That is some serious BS! I am pretty sure it is easier for an LLM student to secure a good job if you already have some work experience. Some firms do look for recent graduates with good grades and all that, but they ALSO look for people with work experience. So to have experience for sure makes it easier.
quote
sachin

sorry, I was not clear. Work experience is of course essential, as in summer internships etc. What I was taking issue with was someone suggetsing that you had to be in your late 20s/early 30's with all sorts of career experience to be acceptable to a law firm, wheras in fact that would be a distinct disadvantage. I said that in response to the assertion that it was 'a joke' that HLS accepts 22 yearolds. Of course, an LLB with a US LLM sounds fantastic, but as everyone is saying here, a JD is what they are really looking for.

sorry, I was not clear. Work experience is of course essential, as in summer internships etc. What I was taking issue with was someone suggetsing that you had to be in your late 20s/early 30's with all sorts of career experience to be acceptable to a law firm, wheras in fact that would be a distinct disadvantage. I said that in response to the assertion that it was 'a joke' that HLS accepts 22 yearolds. Of course, an LLB with a US LLM sounds fantastic, but as everyone is saying here, a JD is what they are really looking for.
quote
gar33

sorry, I was not clear. Work experience is of course essential, as in summer internships etc. What I was taking issue with was someone suggetsing that you had to be in your late 20s/early 30's with all sorts of career experience to be acceptable to a law firm, wheras in fact that would be a distinct disadvantage. I said that in response to the assertion that it was 'a joke' that HLS accepts 22 yearolds. Of course, an LLB with a US LLM sounds fantastic, but as everyone is saying here, a JD is what they are really looking for.


Of course!

<blockquote>sorry, I was not clear. Work experience is of course essential, as in summer internships etc. What I was taking issue with was someone suggetsing that you had to be in your late 20s/early 30's with all sorts of career experience to be acceptable to a law firm, wheras in fact that would be a distinct disadvantage. I said that in response to the assertion that it was 'a joke' that HLS accepts 22 yearolds. Of course, an LLB with a US LLM sounds fantastic, but as everyone is saying here, a JD is what they are really looking for.</blockquote>

Of course!
quote
sachin

I do not think I was arrogant. I do not understand your saying about your "justify part of your message".
What I can say is that I have already worked in the US. And you will see by yourself...
Do not forget a LLM is not a JD. You really need to put something on the table.


Im really sorry cindy, that wasn't intended for you at all. You're spot on as well, the LLM isnt the JD. I'm doing it just for fun really, since I already have a job lined up at home. I'm worried for those who are going to HLS thinking it will be a dead cert. entry to a top NY firm. No offence inteded, I think we're of the same view!

<blockquote>I do not think I was arrogant. I do not understand your saying about your "justify part of your message".
What I can say is that I have already worked in the US. And you will see by yourself...
Do not forget a LLM is not a JD. You really need to put something on the table.</blockquote>

Im really sorry cindy, that wasn't intended for you at all. You're spot on as well, the LLM isnt the JD. I'm doing it just for fun really, since I already have a job lined up at home. I'm worried for those who are going to HLS thinking it will be a dead cert. entry to a top NY firm. No offence inteded, I think we're of the same view!
quote
hannenyh

Work experience is of course essential, as in summer internships etc ... What I was taking issue with was someone suggetsing that you had to be in your late 20s/early 30's with all sorts of career experience to be acceptable to a law firm, wheras in fact that would be a distinct disadvantage..


A distinct disadvantage? When did work experience become a disadvantage? This is too weird! Must be a cultural thing or something...

What is a distinct disadvantage is not having a JD when applying for legal jobs in the US. That we can all agree on.

<blockquote> Work experience is of course essential, as in summer internships etc ... What I was taking issue with was someone suggetsing that you had to be in your late 20s/early 30's with all sorts of career experience to be acceptable to a law firm, wheras in fact that would be a distinct disadvantage..</blockquote>

A distinct disadvantage? When did work experience become a disadvantage? This is too weird! Must be a cultural thing or something...

What is a distinct disadvantage is not having a JD when applying for legal jobs in the US. That we can all agree on.
quote
karamazov

you guys got into HLS? Nice!

you guys got into HLS? Nice!
quote
sachin

Work experience is of course essential, as in summer internships etc ... What I was taking issue with was someone suggetsing that you had to be in your late 20s/early 30's with all sorts of career experience to be acceptable to a law firm, wheras in fact that would be a distinct disadvantage..


A distinct disadvantage? When did work experience become a disadvantage? This is too weird! Must be a cultural thing or something...

What is a distinct disadvantage is not having a JD when applying for legal jobs in the US. That we can all agree on.


I do seem to have put a cat among the pigeons. Apologies. As we all agree, a JD is almost essential (sadly). What I was taking issue with, following on from gar33's shock at the slight that it was a 'joke' that we 22 yearolds should have been admitted to Harvard, was that it is not necessary to be a top 10 solicitor or have started the first ever banking law module or advised the President on some legal issue (which are all mindblowingly impressive) to get into a US law firm. All I know, from solicitor's and barristers in the UK, is that if you applied to them, in your 30's, they would require some very serious justification as to why you were applying so late (most applicants being 22/23/24) and frankly, why you thought you needed to do an LLM at that stage either. By work experience I meant internships (essential) rather than having done some other job for a number of years (potential disadvantage in UK).

<blockquote><blockquote> Work experience is of course essential, as in summer internships etc ... What I was taking issue with was someone suggetsing that you had to be in your late 20s/early 30's with all sorts of career experience to be acceptable to a law firm, wheras in fact that would be a distinct disadvantage..</blockquote>

A distinct disadvantage? When did work experience become a disadvantage? This is too weird! Must be a cultural thing or something...

What is a distinct disadvantage is not having a JD when applying for legal jobs in the US. That we can all agree on. </blockquote>

I do seem to have put a cat among the pigeons. Apologies. As we all agree, a JD is almost essential (sadly). What I was taking issue with, following on from gar33's shock at the slight that it was a 'joke' that we 22 yearolds should have been admitted to Harvard, was that it is not necessary to be a top 10 solicitor or have started the first ever banking law module or advised the President on some legal issue (which are all mindblowingly impressive) to get into a US law firm. All I know, from solicitor's and barristers in the UK, is that if you applied to them, in your 30's, they would require some very serious justification as to why you were applying so late (most applicants being 22/23/24) and frankly, why you thought you needed to do an LLM at that stage either. By work experience I meant internships (essential) rather than having done some other job for a number of years (potential disadvantage in UK).
quote
coco

Sachin,

Saying that people in their 30's are at a disadvantage is ludicrous. First off, Americans have at least 7 years of university experience before even looking for junior associate positions at firms- that makes them at least 25. Secondly, I know a 45 year old who was offered an associate position because he could bring in business (a rainmaker), despite coming from a totally different job sector. The most successsful lawyers are the one's with contacts who can bring clients on board... I'm not sure many in their early 20's can do that. It takes years to develop leads. Age is certainly NOT a disadvantage... unless you're a runway model.

Sachin,

Saying that people in their 30's are at a disadvantage is ludicrous. First off, Americans have at least 7 years of university experience before even looking for junior associate positions at firms- that makes them at least 25. Secondly, I know a 45 year old who was offered an associate position because he could bring in business (a rainmaker), despite coming from a totally different job sector. The most successsful lawyers are the one's with contacts who can bring clients on board... I'm not sure many in their early 20's can do that. It takes years to develop leads. Age is certainly NOT a disadvantage... unless you're a runway model.
quote
hannenyh

This is just a weird discussion. As coco says, most people don't even finish law school till they are 25 (do you have like 4 years of school?). Then work a couple of years, then get their LLM degree. A lot of people have their work pay for the LLM which makes way sense.

This is just a weird discussion. As coco says, most people don't even finish law school till they are 25 (do you have like 4 years of school?). Then work a couple of years, then get their LLM degree. A lot of people have their work pay for the LLM which makes way sense.
quote
lawpartner

you guys got into HLS? Nice!


Karamazov, yours was the funniest post I have read in a long time!!
One really wonders about
1) Maturity level of some of these folks
2) Selection process of school(s) that is admitting these people with these maturity levels (I went to HLS myself for my JD, but did not know the LLM selection is so poor)
3) That baseless statements like "Being 'experienced' is something you would have to justfify rather than be arrogant about"
4) The idiotic unabashed self promotion "I mentioned my credentials whenever someone asked me to do so..as impressive they may be blah blah blah...."

Folks, as a practising lawyer and a partner in NY law firm employing 251 lawyers, I would like to say a few things...
1) learn to practice humility before you learn to practice law!!
2) Good experience always always always counts....and so does good attitude.

Good luck and cheers!!!

<blockquote>you guys got into HLS? Nice!</blockquote>

Karamazov, yours was the funniest post I have read in a long time!!
One really wonders about
1) Maturity level of some of these folks
2) Selection process of school(s) that is admitting these people with these maturity levels (I went to HLS myself for my JD, but did not know the LLM selection is so poor)
3) That baseless statements like "Being 'experienced' is something you would have to justfify rather than be arrogant about"
4) The idiotic unabashed self promotion "I mentioned my credentials whenever someone asked me to do so..as impressive they may be blah blah blah...."

Folks, as a practising lawyer and a partner in NY law firm employing 251 lawyers, I would like to say a few things...
1) learn to practice humility before you learn to practice law!!
2) Good experience always always always counts....and so does good attitude.

Good luck and cheers!!!
quote
lawpartner

And about the age and an LLM (sans JD) applying for a US job: If I am reviewing a resume of an LLM, I make the following deductions...
1) If he is 22-23 and did an LLM, he had his father's money to burn
2) If he is above that age, then either he has an extremely generous father or an extremely impractical lending institute or has stacks of money himself.

In both of the above scenarios, I throw the resume in the trash can and start looking for a JD.

Seriously people, if a US job is your goal, LLM is NOT for you. Do a JD!!

And about the age and an LLM (sans JD) applying for a US job: If I am reviewing a resume of an LLM, I make the following deductions...
1) If he is 22-23 and did an LLM, he had his father's money to burn
2) If he is above that age, then either he has an extremely generous father or an extremely impractical lending institute or has stacks of money himself.

In both of the above scenarios, I throw the resume in the trash can and start looking for a JD.

Seriously people, if a US job is your goal, LLM is NOT for you. Do a JD!!
quote
Cindy

I agree with all these 4 last posts.
Just a precision. Some people (just a few, though) with a LLM have the opportunity to land a job in the US. But all the people who did so and that I know have a lot of experience. Myself, if I worked in law firms in the US (without even a LLM and worse, coming from a civil law country!), it is because of my broad experience and my capacity to bring in business.
It is true that most resumes finish in the trash bin.
By the way I also worked in a law firm in London and what I observed there, is experience is always a good point. I would never think to go in a foreign country and expect to find a job without having something to sell.

I agree with all these 4 last posts.
Just a precision. Some people (just a few, though) with a LLM have the opportunity to land a job in the US. But all the people who did so and that I know have a lot of experience. Myself, if I worked in law firms in the US (without even a LLM and worse, coming from a civil law country!), it is because of my broad experience and my capacity to bring in business.
It is true that most resumes finish in the trash bin.
By the way I also worked in a law firm in London and what I observed there, is experience is always a good point. I would never think to go in a foreign country and expect to find a job without having something to sell.
quote
hannenyh

Lawpartner: Great post! I truly started to wonder if US companies were different from most the rest of the world when deciding who to hire. I guess I was right assuming that sachin's posts were inaccurate.

One thing though: 1. Some LLM's land jobs. Probably mostly because of luck, hard work and/or experience. 2. Some LLM's go to the US because of scholarships or they are paid by work, but who wouldn't love to have a rich daddy :D

Lawpartner: Great post! I truly started to wonder if US companies were different from most the rest of the world when deciding who to hire. I guess I was right assuming that sachin's posts were inaccurate.

One thing though: 1. Some LLM's land jobs. Probably mostly because of luck, hard work and/or experience. 2. Some LLM's go to the US because of scholarships or they are paid by work, but who wouldn't love to have a rich daddy :D
quote
lawpartner

Cindy,

You are right. I stand corrected. Though in our law firm, an LLM sans JD is rarely considered, there are a few other law firms I know of that hire LLMs. But as you rightly said, right experience is a must. Right attitude helps. And the ability to bring in clientele is a distinct plus.

Cheers!

Cindy,

You are right. I stand corrected. Though in our law firm, an LLM sans JD is rarely considered, there are a few other law firms I know of that hire LLMs. But as you rightly said, right experience is a must. Right attitude helps. And the ability to bring in clientele is a distinct plus.

Cheers!
quote
lawpartner

Lawpartner: Great post! I truly started to wonder if US companies were different from most the rest of the world when deciding who to hire. I guess I was right assuming that sachin's posts were inaccurate.

One thing though: 1. Some LLM's land jobs. Probably mostly because of luck, hard work and/or experience. 2. Some LLM's go to the US because of scholarships or they are paid by work, but who wouldn't love to have a rich daddy :D


Hannenyh,
I stand corrected again. There are some rare individuals who are doing LLMs on scholarships, working parttime as waiters to pay the living expenses. They humble the rest of us. My post is completely unfair to them. Sorry!

<blockquote>Lawpartner: Great post! I truly started to wonder if US companies were different from most the rest of the world when deciding who to hire. I guess I was right assuming that sachin's posts were inaccurate.

One thing though: 1. Some LLM's land jobs. Probably mostly because of luck, hard work and/or experience. 2. Some LLM's go to the US because of scholarships or they are paid by work, but who wouldn't love to have a rich daddy :D
</blockquote>

Hannenyh,
I stand corrected again. There are some rare individuals who are doing LLMs on scholarships, working parttime as waiters to pay the living expenses. They humble the rest of us. My post is completely unfair to them. Sorry!
quote

Reply to Post

Related Law Schools

Cambridge, Massachusetts 1165 Followers 888 Discussions