Ok. I know I asked this before but would it be better for me to pursue a JD or LLM? I am a permanent resident and I intend to stay here in the bay area. I am currently leaning towards taking the LLM program but I'm afraid that nobody will hire me. Any thoughts? Thanks.

do the jd of course.it is highly marketable and right now law is the among top five paying careers in america.llm is not marketable.americans do not really like to hire foreigners except for strategic reasons like your original country has business significance.llms are looked at as foreigners who are not as good as jds and generally as 'weird'or something.but with jd u seem more americanized law-wise and will get hired quite easily-theres so much work in legal markets in america.

Well, I usually say that if you are willing to stay in the US "forever", a JD may be a better option than an LLM. However, I think it also depends on where you earn your JD - if you hold a Stanford, Berkeley or UCLA degree, you will certainly be pretty marketable vis-à-vis big firms. Not sure if you pursue your JD in a second or third-tier school, though (unless, of course, you are the best of your class).

Ivan, your words lead to a conclusion that students from 2nd and 3rd tier law schools cannot find a job. Bullshit. 1st tier gives more opportunities, yes. But other schools are not useless spending time.

Get J.D.

Since you are new to this forum, take a look at the posts written by UnderemployedLawyer, who has been through it.

I have not said a JD from a 2nd or 3rd tier law school is a waste of money - but face the facts, if a) You are a foreigner and thus not an English native speaker; b) you graduate with average grades, Big Law Firms will certainly not be an option for you. Of course, there is life beyond the big firms...

Finally, if you think what I am saying is bullshit, go to xoxohth.com and check what people say about TTTs.

The author of the post is concerned that NOBODY will give her/him a job. You concentrated your attention only on employment with large law firms, which I think is a short view on employment, because even foreign student may reach success with not-large firms.
My point is that there are a lot of factors (helpful and not) in a job search, but not only a school where you have got your degree. I will cite you own words, "they say it is not impossible to land a job here, but it depends on a lot of factors, like: i) previous professional experience in your home country; ...iv) contacts and networking." I would also add such factor as LUCK!
I would add to this internships, and even personality. If person is self-confident and knows how the system of netwoking works it is great possibility to be hired even with a large company having average grades (not low grades, of course). Moreover, I don't see much in the goal to be hired by a large firm after graduation, because, yes, there is a life beyond them. So if the author of this post wants to work on a legal field and worries about the fact that NOBODY will hire the foreign student, he/she should put aside those worries and pursue JD.

Since you are new to this forum, take a look at the posts written by UnderemployedLawyer, who has been through it.

I have not said a JD from a 2nd or 3rd tier law school is a waste of money - but face the facts, if a) You are a foreigner and thus not an English native speaker; b) you graduate with average grades, Big Law Firms will certainly not be an option for you. Of course, there is life beyond the big firms...

Finally, if you think what I am saying is bullshit, go to xoxohth.com and check what people say about TTTs.

Hey, let´s put this in context:
1. Agree. That was just one example of a foreign student who earned a JD in the US and had trouble finding a job.
2. Hey I agree with that - I just said that if you are a foreigner and you graduate from a second or third-tier school with average grades, you will not find a job in a big law firm (which is ok, not everybody wants that);
3. Well, this is exactly my point - just read my first post. You do find Cardozo, BLS or NYLS grads in big firms (although I am pretty sure these guys are in the very top of their classes).
4. The mention to xoxo was just a reaction to the fact the other poster said my opinion (btw, same opinion as yours) was bullshit. That´s it. By the way, xoxo cannot be a benchmark of anything.

A constant fact in any business seeking to maximize profit is the need to obtain the best resources, wherever possible. Therefore, any profit-maximizing law firm would seek candidates firstly on the basis of performance at law school as this would usually be the most dynamic benchmark for assessing competition. From this we can deduce that nationality or rankings do not come into it; if you score well at Law School (even if it is a TTT) you will not only have a chance at Biglaw, your chances will also be better than that of a candidate with a LL.M degree but with a foreign undergrad.

2. Being a foreigner with a permanent resident status poses no difficulties in terms of immigration to private firms (a hurdle for firms in converting LL.Ms to permanent staff) and not being a native English speaker does not equate to not having the proficiency to operate in that language in the corporate world.

3. The reality is that a good JD from a third tier in a region with a high demand for lawyers such as New York would always put you in a more favourable position than an LL.M with an accompanying foreign undergrad degree. Check the attorney sections of top nyc firms and see how many you would see are from Cardozo, Brooklyn and New York Law School (for the latter check out Wachtel for these schools and the structured finance page of SRZ, the number 1 firm in hedge funds).

1. The length of the thread of past discussions or the fact that employability has been previously discussed have no relevance unless those discussions relate to the current board query. That was the point on being new and the relevance of the postings by underemployedlawyer.

2. The fact that you have not met an employer concerned about immigration status does not challenge the notion that firms do have to satisfy immigration requirements (that is the hurdle, friend) and that this could be a supplementary factor in a hiring decision - even between LL.Ms with different immigration status but equal academic strengths.

3. The query is not about the catalogue of factors that makes a candidate attractive. The debate is specifically about grades, nationality, rankings and proficiency in English. The point remains that the most important criterion for selecting candidates are JD grades (3yrs of Law school experience and not 9 mths). Consequently, your nationality, LS rankings and, of course the LL.M degree do not come into the primary equation.

4. Of course your degree and location are significant factors for job purposes. Firms have a high tendency to recruit from their regions (check their attorney sections). This is not a surprise if you consider that humans also have a high tendency to be educated and work where their roots are the strongest - your region. This however does not eliminate the notion that JD grades are the most important factors in considering applicants for law firm positions and this reduces the weight to be given to a LL.M degree.

5. Put it crudely, your LL.M degree irrespective of where you may obtain it from only takes you into the dining room; it does not entitle you to share in the main meal. You only go in there with other LL.Ms to fight over remnants left behind by JDs. As long as this is the case, having a JD (even if it is from a TTT) would always matter more than obtaining a LL.M degree (for job purposes).

6. SRZ has people from ALL top schools (check their attorney section). If your point has any relevance here, it merely shows that competition is a two-way process That is, the firm in its quest to obtain the best resources would also have to compete with other similar firms chasing the same objectives. Consequently, the firm has to present itself as the most attractive to the targets.

7. SRZ is already established and leads in its field of specialism. You cannot work as a top banking or finance lawyer in the WEST and not regularly deal with SRZ.

8. The most important advantage a JD has over an experienced LL.M or any LL.M for that matter is that JD credentials are giving priority by employers and you're exposed to a wider range of job opportunities. To use the dining room analogy, you'd be done and dusted at the tables before the LL.Ms are called in to check out the left-overs - unless you're pursuing an academic career.

This thread is making the error of lumping all "foreigners" in the same category of scavengers (a word not employed, but nevertheless implied in some of the posts). First, not all foreigners are non native English speakers or from non-common law backgrounds. It is nonsense on stilts (to plagiarize Bentham) to say that a native English speaker from, say, the UK, Canada or Australia with an LL.B. from a respected school would be better off to pay tonnes of money and time to get an American JD (much less from a third-rate school) than an LLM (especially from a first-tier US school). FYI, major NYC firms recruit Canadian LLBs; it is simply false to say that a JD is necessary.

Marry,

Regarding #1, you're missing the simple point that it is extremely inconvenient to have multiple threads on the same subject up.

Regarding #2, have fun with the logic games. Have you come across any evidence that immigration status is any kind of tiebreaker for hiring partners, who rarely care about administrative details?

Regarding #3, I'm having trouble understanding what your point really is. For JDs, grades are only an issue at very specific firms, and even then they may not matter. I heard an HLS 1L got a 1L summer at Cravath this year, despite a B-. Further, I'd love to see your evidence for saying school ranking and nationality DON'T matter as I haven't seen any.

Regarding #5, I wouldn't phrase it so extremely. I think firms have varying degrees of openness to LLMs from highly ranked schools over "TTTs." Do note that the "TTT" students who go to the big firms are the best ones.

Regarding #6, I don't think their hiring pattern shows they have been able to get a large share of students from the top schools. I'm not talking out of conjecture as an SRZ partner did tell me they haven't been able to attract people from HLS and their HLS first year associate this year went there for reasons unrelated to hedge funds (I'm from HLS, so I only know about HLS).

Regarding #7, niche reputation and selectivity in hiring don't quite go together. You might say this about a number of other younger niche firms like McKee Nelson, etc., although botiques like Wachtell are quite the exception.

Regarding #9, like I said, there are many ways to minimize this and emphasize that, say, you are an HLS alum taking the same classes as JDs. I think getting into the US academe with an LLM is even harder, though.

Again, I notice that your post is anchored largely on general statements, and I'd like to see the underlying evidence.

1. Jose, you keep failing to see the wood for the tree. As long as the issue of employability is not one that is static and therefore does not exclude dynamic and novel views pertinent to current market realities, then the value of past threads or discussions are limited. Market moves, that's all.

2. You haven't yet made any attempts to challenge the notion that firms need to get over immigration hurdles in converting LL.Ms to permanent staff. This is an issue that has nothing to do with the ease of scaling such hurdles.

3. The point is very simple. JD grades for any profit-maximizing firm is the most effective and dynamic factor in assessing the strength of competition between candidates - particularly given that these candidates have nothing with which to gauge their likely success of practising US law. Your point in para 5 about candidates from third-tier schools with good grades getting biglaw firm jobs support the position that other factors (including nationality, LS rankings and killing a polo Bear with your fingers in Alaska) are supplementary for consideration in the job hunting process. You get good grades, you get a shot, period (TTT or no TTT). This is the crux of the argument and your view adds to the evidence.

5. LL.M applicants do not directly compete with JDs. The former at best can only be regarded as fringe rivals to the latter. Consequently, the components for devising hiring policies for both will be different. If you disagree ask yourself why firms do not consider both sectors within the same hiring pool or why your LS offer different job selection programmes for the two groups.

6. Obtaining a 'large share' of top school candidates is a vague statement. The debate is not about quantifying the share of top school graduates that drifts yearly to SRZ. It is on whether they attract candidates from top schools. Moreover, a criterion of 'large share' is of no use if you consider that firms value diversity and that different components such as the economy and job availability drive the size of vacancies within firms.

In any event, the firm's website conclusively shows that they have candidates from ALL top schools. So this is an open and shut case - unless you think there is a mistake on their web pages or those people are wide imaginings of the firm. What the partner tells you is deadly irrelevant to the discussion or at best otiose. It does not match the public statement of the firm.

Moreover, your discussion with the partner is suspect. On the one hand, you claim that he told you that they haven't been able to recruit from Harvard, on the other hand you claim that he testified that they have Harvard recruits as first year Associates but they had not joined to practise hedge funds.

The point is about recruitment from top schools and SRZ does it, period. It mattered not at what stage the people were recruited or their purposes for going there. Furthermore, not joining for hedge fund reasons does not detract from the fact that the firm leads in that field.

7. Niche reputation and marketing significantly go hand-in-hand. They are plus factors in any form of client marketing and that includes pitching for prospective future partners of the firm (or hiring selectivity to use your phrase). A salesman only put forward first the strength of the products. Law firms are no different they market their practice areas in the best available formats. They claim to be leaders in fields they are known for and thereby generate added value through securing work for other practice areas. Wachtel is known for M & A and through this it secures all the work for its antitrust dept that only do mergers (check the website). Consequently, less fortunate firms are more or less shut-off from competing to defend mergers formed by Wachtel's M & A. Equally a firm being well known to students in a particular field can leverage that strength in snagging students aware of it but interested in other areas. That is your point on Wachtel and it backs up my position.

9. LL.Ms and JDs do not directly compete or at best the competition between them is extremely limited. So there's nothing to minimize particularly given that employment policy in relation to LL.M would have no effects on JD recruitment; while the same cannot be said for the effect of JD recruitment policies on LL.M recruitment. Put it simply, the more JD they recruit the less LL.Ms they need and they will always recruit JDs first. You may, however, improve your chances against your fellow LL.Ms in the scramble for the left overs.

The point on academia and foreign LL.Ms is to indicate that they are excluded from the debate.

10. My post is strongly anchored in reason. I accept your compliments in this regard (contained in the first sentence of your para 2) about me engaging in logic games.

Anyway, I'm done with this. Have a nice life, mate.

1. And you keep failing to see that it's simple convention to continue an active thread rather than starting new ones on the exact same topic?

2. Because firms don't particularly care about the cost of getting you an H1B visa, as opposed to many other factors? In the same vein, they don't particularly care about immigration and housing costs for moving associates to foreign offices. Really, it's a non-issue.

3a. But I just told you that some Harvard 1Ls can get into Cravath with B-ses? I mean, you don't think it's extreme to say that only grades (and not school) matter?

3b. "Polo bear"? New Ralph Lauren line?

4. Hey, where's number four?

5. Again, you don't think LLMs from "tier 1" schools aren't competing with JDs from "tier 2" schools for "leftover" slots for US offices?

6. I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you just said, and I hope you're kind enough to provide a translation. Anyway, I think it makes sense to listen to the HIRING PARTNER of the firm in question, and having ONE Harvard JD first year doesn't mean they get a lot of Harvard grads.

7a. I also have no idea what you just tried to say. I'm afraid comparing leadership in M&A and its multibillion "bet the company" deals just doesn't compare to leadership in any other area, not even SRZ and hedge funds at this point. There's a reason why Wachtell is #1 in the Vault prestige rankings while SRZ is #76, even though they both dominate their niches. Vault #2 to #6 are, coincidentally, leaders in M&A as well, as opposed to appellate litigation, structured finance, white collar defense, etc.

7b. I think the Vault rankings are not very relevant, but they concededly influence which firms can afford to be selective, our context.

7c. And didn't I say Wachtell was an exception?

8. Oh, eight is missing too?

9. Yes, but the context was LLMs competing against JDs from lower-ranked schools?

10. Yes, I think your post is grounded on reason, such that the words "ivory tower" come to mind. This employability debate is hardly an academic exercise, and I believe I asked for some evidence to anchor some of your more extreme opinions.

Look, you can reason all you want, but if a hiring partner says you didn't give him the reasons he's looking for, then that's that.

viva, good point. I know personally of three people currently working in NY having graduated llb's in canada. To this end I would add that some canadian schools even call their llb degrees jd' s now (uoft for example).

1. And you keep failing to see that it's simple convention to continue an active thread rather than starting new ones on the exact same topic?

2. Because firms don't particularly care about the cost of getting you an H1B visa, as opposed to many other factors? In the same vein, they don't particularly care about immigration and housing costs for moving associates to foreign offices. Really, it's a non-issue.

3a. But I just told you that some Harvard 1Ls can get into Cravath with B-ses? I mean, you don't think it's extreme to say that only grades (and not school) matter?

3b. "Polo bear"? New Ralph Lauren line?

4. Hey, where's number four?

5. Again, you don't think LLMs from "tier 1" schools aren't competing with JDs from "tier 2" schools for "leftover" slots for US offices?

6. I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you just said, and I hope you're kind enough to provide a translation. Anyway, I think it makes sense to listen to the HIRING PARTNER of the firm in question, and having ONE Harvard JD first year doesn't mean they get a lot of Harvard grads.

7a. I also have no idea what you just tried to say. I'm afraid comparing leadership in M&A and its multibillion "bet the company" deals just doesn't compare to leadership in any other area, not even SRZ and hedge funds at this point. There's a reason why Wachtell is #1 in the Vault prestige rankings while SRZ is #76, even though they both dominate their niches. Vault #2 to #6 are, coincidentally, leaders in M&A as well, as opposed to appellate litigation, structured finance, white collar defense, etc.

7b. I think the Vault rankings are not very relevant, but they concededly influence which firms can afford to be selective, our context.

7c. And didn't I say Wachtell was an exception?

8. Oh, eight is missing too?

9. Yes, but the context was LLMs competing against JDs from lower-ranked schools?

10. Yes, I think your post is grounded on reason, such that the words "ivory tower" come to mind. This employability debate is hardly an academic exercise, and I believe I asked for some evidence to anchor some of your more extreme opinions.

Look, you can reason all you want, but if a hiring partner says you didn't give him the reasons he's looking for, then that's that.

Good lord.

1. Convention regarding how to post, not the substantive discussion?

2. It's not a CONCLUSION to say that no career advisor, hiring partner, recruiter or former LLM has ever hinted that immigration-related costs are an issue.

3a. Why aren't you responding to the fact that "top tier" firms hire "top tier" graduates with average grades?

4. Check. I didn't even use numbering.

5. It's not market reality that firms look at "Tier 1" schools' LLMs after JDs accept or reject offers (and sometimes, during Fall) instead of sending ads out for "Tier 2" schools' JDs?

6. Oh, stop nitpicking on the difference between one and zero.

7a. It's not a CONCLUSION that Wachtell is ranked #1 in the Vault prestige survey, come on.

7b and c: The implied rule is that being #1 in a field does not always allow you to be #1 in selectivity (Wachtell being a clear exception).

8. "Ibid" is an outdated citation form used to refer to the preceding citation, so "Ibid at 4 above" makes no sense.

9. Supra, point 5.

10. Let's go back to the "conclusions" at 2 and 7a above please.

Yes,marryme is right.the fact is, and some llms do not like to hear this,jds do not compete for jobs with us llms.they compete among themselves,and then llms share whatever leftovers remain.it doesnt matter even if you are an llm in harvard.i am too and as i have always said,those llms who manage to get jobs in firms here be they legal or big four are the lucky ones.tier 4 jd (fairly good grades) is considered superior to tier 1 llm.Tier 1 jd with weak grades (hence the harvard 1Ls going to Cravath)may be considered better than tier 2,3,4 jd with good grade, but point is,llm with good grades from tier 1,even hls is considered inferior to jd from tier 2,3,4.thats why very many llms with good grades,law firm experience and all even in harvard and other so called tier 1 schools still do not have jobs in america.

Ok. I know I asked this before but would it be better for me to pursue a JD or LLM? I am a permanent resident and I intend to stay here in the bay area. I am currently leaning towards taking the LLM program but I'm afraid that nobody will hire me. Any thoughts? Thanks.