Influencer Marketing: How can I make money or expand my network while in law school?

As I sit in the expansive meeting hall amongst a sea of other 1Ls during orientation, I think about how nervous I am to be here. Even my scholarship-subsidized $20,000 tuition for the year was difficult to come up with, but it's significantly less than what most others pay (UC Davis Law tuition is just under $60,000)––or will have to pay after incurring significant debt––for law school. One of our academic deans walks up to the stage and announces that law school will be rigorous, stressful, and time-consuming. She also announces that we should not have jobs while in school.

This is not a unique experience. Many friends who attend other law schools told me that their deans don't just advise against students getting jobs, they forbid it. Students are thus faced with a difficult question during their first year of law school: do I incur massive debt and throw myself into my law school experience, or do I work and achieve financial security while putting my law school experience at risk? 

There's now a third option in a growing age of social media marketing: law students can monetize their "influence" by either documenting their law school experiences online, or by engaging in brand deals where they recommend products to their “followers.” Two of my friends have particularly enjoyed their experience as “influencers,” and have reaped other perks, too. 

One friend, "A.J.," shared that her experience working with brands resulted in transferable skills in her job as a transactional attorney at a “big law” firm. As an influencer, she often "marked up" potential contracts with her brand partners, negotiating key terms such as deliverables, timelines, price, and usage rights. During interviews, she explained that the negotiation and contract-drafting skills she acquired would allow her to be a stronger negotiator. Her personal experience translating "legalese" to lay terms allowed her to do the same for clients once she began working as an attorney. 

That said, she also acknowledged several risks to availing oneself to an online audience. These include the potential for reputational damage. A.J. writes, "Your professional reputation starts in law school, if not before. If you are connected with your classmates and coworkers on social media, they may judge you for what you post. Being called an 'influencer' has had a negative connotation in my opinion, so you may have to manage that."

Fortunately, a growing community of lawyers engage in content creation. This mitigates some of the negative perceptions of being an "influencer." 

Potential tax liability can be another pitfall. A.J. warns that "free gifts" or "free trips" delivered by brand partners to influencers are actually income on which taxes must be paid.  

Another friend, "B.Q.," shared that she "wouldn't consider herself an influencer" but has enjoyed sharing her experience online as a first-gen and DACA student. She garnered her platform after posting a "reaction video" to Tiktok of opening her California Bar "Pass.” Since then, many individuals have messaged her, often to ask questions about the law school application process.  She thus realized there was a need to document what it's like to attend law school and work at a "big law" firm. She is using her platform to post educational videos about the law school admissions process, on-campus interviewing (“OCI”), and her journey in general. B.Q. has connected with women in San Francisco who share identities with her, and she says it has helped her foster community. 

That said, B.Q. cautions against having too-large a social media platform. 

Every law firm has a social media policy. Many are becoming more conservative with respect to their social media policies, so I definitely recommend being very cautious about what you post. I don't post my firm's name in any video and am careful to not come across as speaking on behalf of my firm or posting any confidential information on my platform. 

B.Q. also shared that, during the OCI process, she made most of her social media accounts private to avoid being judged for her personal views. 

Whether you decide to supplement your law school career financially via influencer marketing, or to grow your network via influencer networking, social media is a new tool law students can use to expand opportunities. While it was not the best opportunity for me, I have seen several friends successfully manage their accounts to supplement their experiences in corporate world, be it through paying off debt, speaking about “influencing” in interviews, or finding a community or network of similarly situated individuals.  

As the legal field adapts to technological and media advancements, influencer marketing could be a useful skill to add to your resume. 

If you give a first gen a responsibility...

One of my favorite books as a child was "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie." This popular picture book details the situation presented in the title: what would happen if you gave a mouse a cookie. First, he would ask for some milk to wash it down. Then, he would ask for a napkin to wipe his face. Then, he would want to look at himself in the mirror to make sure he was clean. Then, he would notice he needed a haircut. And so on and so forth. 

I am not a kindergarten teacher, nor do I have an English degree, so I am unsure of the intended message of the book. My takeaway as an adult is that if you are generous to someone, they may perhaps keep asking things from you until you can no longer give. Maybe it was my malleable childhood brain or my ambivalent/avoidant attachment style, but I have internalized this to mean that asking too much of others makes you a burden. 

A recurring theme in this class has been the grit that first-gen students often possess. Most of us have described our "I'll figure it out on my own" attitude, and we saw that reflected in a study of first-gen law students. We also heard from a guest speaker how the first-gen students she had interviewed demonstrated not taking advantage of resources in schools, such as office hours, because of a rural mentality associated with extreme self-sufficiency.

This semester, I had the honor of being elected Managing Editor ("ME") of the UC Davis Law Review. Being ME is my first higher up executive position since, well... ever. Having this position has made me question my perspective on responsibility, especially as someone with a first-gen mentality. This is an actual case of when you give a first-gen law student a responsibility -- rather than a cookie. 

The commitments for this position began the day I was elected. Within the first couple of hours after receiving the email, I was meeting with the new Editor-in-Chief to talk about tasks that needed to be done. That weekend, he and I met with almost all of our new editors over some 10 meetings. Since then, I have put on an info session and a panel and created many Google forms and an Instagram account, not to mention the organization meetings and class appearances I've attended with my DEI Editors and Projects Editor. 

I have not been given much instruction by the previous ME, or maybe rather I have not sought out the instruction necessary to feel well-prepared. Despite this, I have adjusted quite a bit, I started out in the position often crying and having anxiety attacks because I had no idea what I was doing. It seemed that, even when I asked for help from the previous ME, I was making mistakes that undermined others' confidence in my ability. 

With my first-gen mentality, I needed to figure it out on my own. I had always done so before, and why would that change now? I mean how hard could it really be juggling all of these emails and tasks? I told myself that I would be a burden to others if I asked for help. I needed to be perfect the first time, without help, or else I would see myself as a failure. 

Over the past couple of months in this position, I can think of maybe 2 or 3 times where I have delegated a task to someone else. Given the number of emails, forms, and events I am technically responsible for, I am realizing I need to get comfortable saying "hey, can you make this form for me?," or something similar. The Editor-in-Chief has appointed a Projects Editor whose entire position is to help me and the DEI Editors with events and recruitment, yet I have given her little to do. 

People see I am stressed and offer to help, but I really don't know what to tell them. If I can't do all of the things within the scope of my position, then what good am I? I wish I could say this post will inspire me to delegate more efficiently, but I am pretty sure that it won't. The attitudes are simply too ingrained to shrug off easily.

This attitude of extreme self-sufficiency has permeated many aspects of my schooling. It is the same mentality that keeps me from attending office hours. If I can't figure out the answer on my own, I tend to think, what good am I? I rarely ask my parents for money because, I tend to think, if I can't take care of myself, what good am I? 

Ironically, this has not yet carried into my professional life. I think that my fear of doing a bad job and being reprimanded overrides my anxiety to ask for help. I do worry, however, that I will be less willing to ask questions or delegate as I get more comfortable in my career. The first-gen mentality will no doubt persist for some time to come. 

If you give a mouse a cookie, he may never stop asking more and more of you. He may ask so much that you can't stand it. If you give a first-gen student a responsibility, they will likely thank you and figure it out on their own. 

If you give a first gen a cookie though. Well, to that, I would have no idea, but I don't think there's any way a first gen would ever be as demanding as the mouse.

“Big Law” Series: What does the "end" of DEI mean for students and "big law" job prospects? (Part III)

See Part I and Part II.

DEI and Big Law: Benefits of DEI initiatives 

In some ways, the elimination of law firm DEI programs will not significantly impact first-gen students' abilities to get "big law" jobs. Sure, these programs offer students a high-paying job and scholarship. But grades, achievements, and fit have and will continue to take precedence in hiring decisions. As a 2009 LCLD scholar states in his LinkedIn post, “[m]ost employers aren’t really in the business of hiring people who can’t do the work.” However, the elimination of law firm-DEI programs will influence accessibility and retention. 

For example, fewer first-generation students may be encouraged to apply for these spots because they do not hear about potential positions as firms cut their marketing budgets. Even for students who are not selected to participate in these prestigious programs, they get a competitive advantage by talking to law firm recruiters early in the process. Eliminating incentives to apply––like a hefty scholarship––may mean fewer first-gen applicants. Demand for "big law" jobs is also increasing as the Trump administration has eliminated the DOJ Honors program and other government work opportunities. 

Retention measures may also be at risk. Affinity organizations––groups which underrepresented minority individuals can join within firms––often help associates transition into big-law life. Advantages like meeting coworkers your first year versus second, learning the culture of the workplace, or understanding the structure of a law firm are exponentially beneficial to students who are the “first and onlys” in their families; they are, perhaps, lost on illegible students who come from a long line of attorneys or working professionals who can give them the same mentorship they would gain from an extra summer of work. 

First-gen law students will have to overcome many barriers, obstacles, and unknowns to get to law school, let alone to succeed in “big law:” taking the LSAT, completing several law school applications, purchasing suits, participating in "OCI," getting good grades, attending networking events, and more. Accessibility, in my opinion, is not defined as whether the application "door" is open. Accessibility connotes whether interested students are given equal opportunities to set goals; participate meaningfully in school- and workplace-culture; or control their careers.

Law schools should continue to use holistic measures to create a more diverse student population. This diversity is not limited to ethnic or socioeconomic diversity, though. It should be, as Justice O’Connor noted in the majority opinion of Grutter, “focus[ed] on academic ability coupled with a flexible assessment of applicants’ talents, experiences, and potential ‘to contribute to the learning of those around them.’” Id. at 315. The legal field––which, according to the ABA, has long been dominated by white (78% of the profession, 2024), straight (approx. 93% of the profession, 2023), able-bodied (approx. 98% of the profession, 2023) lawyers––is thus served by instituting these diversity measures. As long as financial and informational disparities exist, these DEI programs are justified.

A reflection on the hidden curriculum of strategic course registration and planning

As a "First and Only," I have found course registration in higher education to be a time of particular difficulty. It's easy enough to choose your classes on a shallow whim, simply picking those classes which align with either your interests or friends but, there's a hidden art to maximizing the impact of your course choices. Having recently completed another round of course registration, I can't help but think of opportunities my peers and I have to maximize our marketability which we miss out on due to having been the first in our family to go through this process.

My second eldest sister, Stephanie, entered our high school alma mater four years before me. She graduated and went off to college right before I entered high school. Before she went, she and a career advisor helped me understand electives and their prerequisites. I chose carefully and, in conjunction with extracurriculars, I was able to graduate with my diploma, as well as two "academy certificates." These allowed me to denote "with honors" on my diploma and resume.

Once again carefully planning my courses, I was also able to graduate from community college with three associate's degrees. Having gone to UC Davis rather than Santa Cruz, I wasn't as fortunate coming out of my undergraduate studies (especially considering the pandemic), and I was unable to complete my planned minor in Chinese Studies because I was not strategic in selecting and scheduling my elective classes. Taking the additional classes necessary to complete the minor would have required me to stay enrolled for just short of an additional year.

At UC Davis School of Law (King Hall), there are many similar opportunities for those who select their classes with consideration more comprehensive than merely meeting the minimum requirements needed to graduate. In particular, I would like to draw attention to the eight certificate programs available here at King Hall. This school provides certificates in a variety of concentrations, including Business Law; Criminal Law and Policy; Environmental Law; Immigration Law; Intellectual Property; Public Service; Tax; and Pro Bono.

The requirements for these certificates vary, but nearly all of them require completing a certain number of units along with foundational courses in the given concentration. Further, many of the courses overlap, making it a very feasible endeavor to earn one (or even two) of these certificates as a conscientious King Hall student. For example, a 2L who has already taken Federal Income Tax; Corporate Tax; and Trust, Wills and Estates; State and Local Tax has already gone a long way towards earning both the Business Law and Tax Certificates. There are also great commonalities between the requirements of the Immigration Law and Criminal Law Certificates. Also, those participating in the Public Service Law Program are nearly a shoeing for the Pro Bono Certificate.

Pursuing these certificates may require aspiring students to prioritize certain classes over others that may have drawn their interest. In my opinion, however, this sacrifice is well worth the cost. Legal certificate programs show employers and clients possession of specialized knowledge and/or passion in a particular area of law. This makes certificate holders more competitive in legal market. Possessing such accreditation may also ultimately allow an attorney to charge higher fees for their services. This is a pertinent consideration for paid and pro bono work, especially regarding claims and motions by which attorneys seek reasonable attorney's fees and costs (e.g. §1983 claims and motions to compel).

I hope my friends, as well as my fellow First and Onlys reading this, will consider whether these certificates can advance their careers--and that they will be strategic about taking the courses necessary to obtain one or more.

“Big Law” Series: What does the "end" of DEI mean for students and "big law" job prospects? (Part II)

Context: DEI initiatives and Equal Protection

Several of my law school courses have explored whether DEI initiatives are legal under the 14th Amendment––the Constitutional requirement to treat all individuals equal. Even if they are legal, do DEI initiatives propel marginalized individuals forward? Or is “‘[d]iversity,’ for all of its devotees, is more a fashionable catchphrase than it is a useful term, especially when something as serious as racial discrimination is at issue,'" as Justice Thomas posed in his concurrence in the 2003 Supreme Court case, Grutter v. Bollinger?

The job market in an evolving “Equal Protection” landscape

President Trump’s cabinet asserts that DEI initiatives are not legal. Several “big law” firms have been the subjects of Executive Orders commanding them to halt their DEI practices, forgo certain pro bono projects, and end relationships with partisan clients. What do the orders mean for first-generation students applying for post-bar jobs? Although many “big law” firms recognize value in these DEI initiatives and are fighting to keep them in place, a growing contingent of big law firms have acquiesced. To avoid an Executive Order, the capitulating firms have promised the Trump administration hundreds of "pro bono" hours worth millions of dollars. Other large law firms have (thus far) remained silent.

Big Law "Spine Index"

As a law student, my news feed is filled with reactions against those firms bowing down to the Trump administration: open letters by associates threatening resignation; "big law" partners initiating focus groups for other partners to act; or data suggesting 1L students applying to jobs are avoiding those firms. The American Bar Association, law school deans, and various law school faculty have also issued statements against the Trump administration's actions. These entities, or members of the entities, also recognize value in recruiting diverse, first-generation students to their firms. They also observe a sizable risk to that goal in eliminating these programs.

So, how does this affect first-generation law students seeking admissions at law schools?

This year is the most competitive year in history for getting into law school. Law school admissions offices often consider a variety of factors––such as GPA, LSAT (law school admissions test) score, undergraduate institution and area of study, and reasons for attending law school––when determining which students to admit and how much financial aid to award them. With DEI programs coming to an end, will law school admissions be impacted? 

In my opinion, they will not be impacted significantly, if at all. Law schools have been afforded wide leeway to institute holistic review of applicants in the admissions process. See Grutter, 539 U.S. at 346. Programs which DEI initiatives may have been useful to “counteract”––like college admission legacy programs––have been largely dismantled. 

In Grutter, then-Chief Justice Rehnquist (joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) asserted that the University of Michigan Law School’s DEI admissions statistics do not support its stated DEI goals. Id. at 380-84 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). They argued that “the Law School’s disparate admissions practices with respect to these minority groups demonstrate that its alleged goal . . . is simply a sham.” Id. at 383.  Maybe, as Rehnquist asserted,  DEI programs are "dishonest and dangerous activity . . . [that has] undermin[ed] democratic . . . process[es]." 

Perhaps Rehnquist is right––that the end of these programs means less gaming by prospective law students or “big law” associates who feel invalidated by DEI application questions. There may be less stigma associated with vulnerable students; who are racial or ethnic minorities or low-income, and who may be cloaked with a feeling of unreservedness, a lingering question of: “Was it what I achieved despite my adversity or my diverse perspective that gained me admissions? Or am I merely an ‘aesthetic [that shapes] the Law School[‘s] certain appearance, from the shape of the desks and tables in its classrooms to the color of the students sitting at them[?]’” Grutter, 539 U.S. at n. 3 (Thomas, J., concurring in part); see also an Op-Ed in The Atlantic about this sensation (reflecting on the autobiography Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby).  

I will delve further into this debate in Part III, which will address whether this may affect first-generation students breaking into “big law” as a first-generation law student at a “big law” firm. 

“Big Law” Series: Why do students want "Big Law" jobs? (Part I)

Firms are increasingly pushing the on-campus interview process ("OCI") earlier and earlier. Many DEI-eligible students have had a competitive advantage by applying to the 1L Leadership Council on Legal Diversity ("LCLD") or diversity programs offered by “big law” firms. But the existence of these programs raises the question:  why would students participate in stressful, opaque processes just to work in “big law”? What are the benefits of these programs? Why should firms solicit diverse, first-generation students to apply to their early-access programs? This post will explore what “Big Law” is and why first-generation, and particularly low-income, students might be interested in jobs at a big law firm. Subsequent blog entries will discuss President Trump’s executive orders against law firms and why these orders may be relevant to first-generation or diverse students interested in entering the legal field. 

What is “big law”?

Jobs in "big law"––the colloquial name for the top 100-200 law firms as ranked by American Lawyer––are highly coveted due to the type of work lawyers get to do (often representing titans in a field) and the enormous salary they earn (most "big law" firms have starting salaries of >$200,000). The financial stability, work, and prestige make competition for these jobs intense. I’ll unpack some of the details of what these firms offer in the sections that follow.

A. Financial Stability

For many first-generation students, these jobs are not just prestigious, they promise financial stability, which many first-gen students have not previously enjoyed. 

Law school tuition can be extremely expensive, averaging about $151,000 over three years at ABA accredited schools. Many students go into debt to pay for law school, on top of the debt they have accumulated for  college. A big law salary is typically the most efficient means to pay this debt off.

In addition, as a soon-to-be graduate, I have unveiled many "hidden fees" to becoming a licensed attorney: registration with the California State Bar ($150), registration to take the MPRE (ethics exam) ($160), registration to take the California State Bar Exam ($1,082), California Bar Exam prep course (>$2,800), moral character investigation (>$700), and more. These are all expenses for which my "big law” firm is reimbursing me and, in some cases, fronting. 

B. Work Opportunity & Resources 

Another reason why these jobs are so coveted is that they often provide a strong training ground for students to explore many different types of corporate/transactional law or civil litigation projects. As big law firms often have high billing requirements (e.g., minimum of 1900-2100 billable hours/year, often ~60-80 hours of work a week), they require that associates have strong work ethics. The "high-stakes" training ground signals that lawyers at these firms are detail-oriented, quick witted, and less inclined to make mistakes. This sets the lawyers up for opportunities to lateral into other careers in the future. 

C. Prestige

When I started law school, I was unaware that the legal field wielded prestige to impose and maintain hierarchy. There seem to be myriad ways for law students to be "ranked": judicial clerkships, T-14 law schools, Law Review, Order of the Coif, and Order of the Barristers. Yet, data shows that fewer first-gen students are involved in these activities than are their continuing-generation counterparts.

A lawyer’s career can be shaped by how they excelled or the times they did not excel. The legal field can be extremely unforgiving. This puts heightened pressure on students––especially first-generation students––who are unaware of what criteria will be used to evaluate them. As discussed, if first-generation student can break into a “big law” firm, such an opportunity can yield fruitful career opportunities. However, President Trump’s Executive Orders may reduce such opportunities for first-generation students, as will be discussed in Parts II and III.