Search the Lounge


« Nineteenth Century Mansion Trivia | Main | Tales of an Empirical Nothing (Part 1): Measuring the Impact of Judicial Nominations on the Ideology of Courts of Appeals »

July 12, 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Professor T. Roll

I doubt the court will award specific performance. My guess is that the plaintiffs will receive some symbolic modicum of a judgment (e.g. $1 dollar plus attorneys fees). After all, Prof. Stuart and Zisk have a duty to mitigate damages, and as law professors, both could easily just start making 7-figure salaries in the private sector.


Professor Roll, if that argument works, I will be astounded. I don't know what subject you profess to teach, but it surely isn't contracts. Making the argument that a law professor could make 7 figures in the private sector is laughable on many levels, not least of which is that very few peers (attorneys from HYS with clerkships) ever make partner themselves and making partner at a large firm requires a sizeable book of business and years of hard work and that work doesn't stop once you become partner. Also, the claim that professors could make 7 figures in the private sector is akin to any defendant in a contract dispute claiming that the plaintiff should be owed no damages because "he or she can just become a movie star or a professional baseball player, so the damages are mitigated." That never happens. This case is all about whether or not the school faced financial exigency, if that can be established, the profs don't have a case and they hit the breadline with the very students they used to teach.


Yes, laughable on multiple levels, most notably that law professors don't practice law and so wouldn't make 7 -- or even 5 -- figures in the private sector.


Looks like you missed T Roll's joke. Imagine he/she is referring to the infamous Oregon Law professor who said his teaching was charity to students because he could be making 7-figures in practice.

However, Stuart does have pretty impressive work experience and might be able to use her connections to land a pretty lucrative job. I don't see her making 7-figures, but she could probably make her law professor salary and then some. But she will be giving up the law professor lifestyle and career fulfillment.


I assume that anyone who teaches at Charleston Law would have difficulty find any legal job anywhere.



If you are not a member of a very small number of the current crop of law professors, and especially if you are tenured, you can look in the mirror and say the same thing, even if you teach in the T50.


Actually, professors at lower-ranked schools, on average, would have a much easier time getting hired than professors at higher-ranked schools. At the higher-ranked schools, the average time in practice is around 0-2 years. At many lower-ranked schools the average is 5+. There are exceptions and T-14 professors may have more connections and visibility than any.

Stuart worked at Clearly for Gottilieb for over 5 years and then went in-house at Sony before teaching at Charleston. I like her chances over the average T-15 to T-100 professor.

terry malloy

no offense to Stuart, but she worked at Sony for 20 months. I've taken longer to return a relative's phone call. And year 1-5 at Cleary. . . so you're 29 and you've spent hours moving a comma back and forth to run up the hours that the partner will cut. . . not exactly a dealmaker.


Terry, not sure what your experience has been, but I seem to remember that at year 4-5 most BigLaw associates are basically running their own smaller deals.

terry malloy

And what year do you remember, regional?

Just Another Practicing Attorney

I think Ms. Malloy is exaggerating the facts. My experience is closer to Regional's. At least at the elite NYC-based big law firms, the average deal is typically run by a fourth- or fifth-year associate with minimal partner involvement. Keep in mind that many of these firms still have seven-year partnership tracks, so an associate who has survived to the fifth year is probably being groomed for the partnership if he hasn't been told to look for other options.

Of course, one of the reasons a fourth- or fifth-year associate can run the average deal is that the average deal is not very difficult. It is probably a cookie cutter copy of ten other deals he's worked on, in some cases for the same client. Despite the mystique that surrounds "dealmakers", it is not rocket science to put these deals together.

But what I've said above is only true for the average deals. The non-average deals are another matter. It's also only true at the traditional "white shoe" NYC firms like Cleary. Biglaw firms outside that circle have slightly different models that rely more heavily on leverage, so a fourth- or fifth-year associate is less likely to be running his own deals at one of those firms.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad