“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.
Labels: anxiety, biglaw, capitalism, career, dei, diversity, law school, oci, prestige, privilege, race, student debt
posted by ACM @ April 08, 2025
5 Comments
5 Comments:
Dear ACM,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I have to admit that since the inauguration, I have been living in a constant mood of “what’s gonna happen today?” As I talk to many 1Ls, several of them have shared fears of uncertainty for job prospects this summer. And I think those fears are a result of the actions certain law firms are taking in responding to the Trump administration. As someone who is working in a larger firm this summer (hoping to have a post-bar offer), I’m scared that the next classes of summer associates will start to look less like me. We can only hope that those law firms that have remained silent will start to push back. Looking forward to reading your Part II.
Dear ACM,
Thank you for sharing your take on DEI initiatives in the legal community. I have been uneasy with my big law position that I'll be starting in May. Although I was not hired under a DEI program, I received a DEI scholarship that will allow me to reduce the pain of loans I will graduate with. I have been holding my breath and waiting for the email to come that says they have made a mistake and I will not be getting the scholarship.
With respect to your discussion on how this affects law students, I was surprised to learn in Equal Protections last week that the conservative SCOTUS justices recently held that affirmative action and diversity initiatives must have an expiration date. I thought to myself but are we really there yet? I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, and it has certainly made me feel more hopeful for diverse students' futures in the legal profession.
Thank you for your part in bringing this tyrannical travesty to our collective consciousness. I believe the Trump Administration's actions here are a classic case of viewpoint discrimination prohibited by 1st Amendment as well as a 14th Amendment equal protection issue. Such a violation occurs when a government actor regulates speech with the intent to suppress a particular viewpoint. While viewpoint discrimination is prohibited in all forums, in the context of a limited public forum, any restriction on speech must be reasonable considering the forum’s purpose and must not discriminate based on viewpoint. A limited public forum, such as a court of law, is a type of nonpublic forum that the government has intentionally opened for certain groups or for the discussion of certain topics.
As you mentioned in your post, Donald Trump—acting in his capacity as President—has restricted the ability of certain firms to practice law by, among other things, limiting their access to sensitive government information and federal government buildings, through executive order. In these orders, President Trump has made his animus clear. For example, in his March 27, 2025 order, President Trump cites ‘obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends’ (particularly those regarding affirmative action, immigration, and the expansion of voting rights) as pro bono practices abuses so egregious as to justify these measures.
First, President Trump is clearly acting as a government actor. Second, President Trump’s motive is self-admittedly based on his desire to suppress certain political viewpoints supported by the firms targeted in his orders. Third, these measures are almost certain meant to chill these firms’ advocacy for these political causes and limit their pro bono practices.
Therefore, if the rule of law still stands in this country, we should soon see these orders should be enjoined by the courts.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I love that you did your blog on this ACM! I am someone who got their 1L big law job offer through a diversity pipeline. Though I understand concerns over DEI, I can honestly say that these initiatives have never made me question whether or not I deserve to be in a space. I have been hearing that I have gotten spots in schools and jobs because of my race my whole life. No matter how well I did in schools, how many awards I got, or how good my work product has been, there have been people who truly believed that I did not earn my spot. It is interesting that they are not targeting legacy students or white people who get these jobs because of their family or friendship connections. Nonetheless, the only response I have to people questioning mine and so many others' merit is to prove that I don’t deserve what I have. Prove that their work product is always better. Prove that their résumés are always better. Prove that their work product is always better. Until that happens, I will not question any job offer or school admission that I have received.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home