Category: News Feeds

Every year lawyers and law students across the country are financially burdened by student loan debt. Alone, they have no leverage to negotiate interest rates. But together, they can achieve the seemingly impossible.

That’s where LeverEdge, a revolutionary student loan negotiation startup, comes in. They help law students and graduates use collective bargaining to force banks to compete for their loans and offer lower rates. LeverEdge works with both current law students (on in-school loans), and law graduates (on refinancing their loans), to help them get exclusive rate discounts and the best deals on the market. The best part is, joining LeverEdge is free and there is no obligation to take the deals they negotiate. Seriously.

We recently sat down with Tyler Day, a third-year student at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law who joined LeverEdge to finance his degree, to discuss some of the ways collective bargaining negotiations can work for law students and how it can change the financial outlook for law school graduates. For even more information, here’s a complete guide to law school student loans.

How did you find LeverEdge?

This past February one of the founders, Chris Abkarians, sent me a LinkedIn message about a student loan negotiation startup that he co-founded. He explained that LeverEdge serves to make banks come to students for loans and bid against each other, and I was really intrigued by the idea of negotiating bulk loan discounts for my classmates. I signed up with LeverEdge, responded to his message, and asked to set up a call to talk about the idea. That initial call convinced me that this was something special and I ended up being one of the first hires at the company.

Group financing is probably something most prospective law students have never heard of. Please tell us about how it works.

Although it may sound complicated, the idea is quite simple. LeverEdge gathers large groups of students and alumni who need help paying for school or refinancing their loans and gets lenders to compete for their business. When students and graduates can get organized and act as a group, they have stronger buying power. In the same way that avocados are cheaper when you buy them in bulk at Costco instead of your local grocery store, LeverEdge members get lower rates when they are part of the group than if they were to apply for a loan themselves. 

LeverEdge began negotiating on behalf of graduate students from law, MBA, and medical programs, but has now grown to cover undergraduate students and alumni looking to refinance as well. 

The LeverEdge process can be simplified into three steps.

STEP 1: YOU SIGN UP. 

Sign up for free and tell LeverEdge a little bit about yourself and the type of student loan you need. LeverEdge helps both current students and alumni who are looking to refinance their student loans. It takes less than one minute and they don’t run a credit check. Once you’ve joined, encourage your friends to sign up as well. The larger the group grows, the more everyone can save.

Step 2: LEVEREDGE runS a bid. 

LeverEdge runs a bidding process between banks, credit unions, and other lenders. They compete for your collective business by offering exclusive discounts. LeverEdge evaluates each offer based on a range of factors, with a heavy emphasis on how much money each bid will save each of their members, and negotiates an exclusive deal with the lender who offers the best rates and terms. By negotiating on behalf of a large group, they can get loan rates that are lower than any individual member could get.

Step 3: Members get the deal. 

Finally, LeverEdge informs their members about the negotiated deal and shares a link through which members can take advantage of the negotiated rate (this is the stage they are at right now). They provide their members with a sophisticated and unbiased loan calculator that can help members decide which loan is best for them (i.e., the negotiated offer or any other offer they might come across) and provide resources to help them know the LeverEdge deal is better or worse than federal loans for their unique situation.

What if you already have federal loans? Can LeverEdge step in and help a law school graduate refinance?

Yes! Refinancing can be a great option to save money on interest. Some borrowers prefer to keep their federal loans and the protections they provide, but if you plan to refinance LeverEdge can save you even more money with their exclusive discounts. 

Refinancing your student loan refers to the process of taking out a new loan to pay off one or more outstanding loans (including private and/or federal loans). Borrowers usually refinance in order to receive lower interest rates, change repayment terms, or to otherwise reduce their repayment amount.

Many law students choose to refinance their student loans after they graduate and start full-time work because they will get a significantly lower interest rate than they had in school. You normally need to have three paychecks from your new job in order to qualify.

Remember, there are trade offs. If you have taken out federal loans in the past, refinancing means that you will switch to a private loan and lose the protections of Income Driven Repayment Plans and Public Service Loan Forgiveness (there is no way to refinance and keep the federal protections).

Why did you decide to use this method to finance your law degree?

My wife and I are both attending graduate school at the same time. Before we started, we were very aware of the amount of student loan debt that we needed to take out and planned accordingly. To be honest, we knew that we could accept federal loans to cover our expenses but never really considered other options until I learned about LeverEdge. 

When I realized that LeverEdge could offer substantially lower interest rates than what the federal government was offering and I saw the amount of money that I could save in the student loan calculator, I started to investigate the pros and cons of private loans over federal loans. It became very clear that if I was going to take a private loan, LeverEdge was definitely the best option — they vetted all the lenders in the market and chose the one who would offer the best rate, plus they negotiated an exclusive discount and benefits on top of that.

What are the differences between a federal loan and a private loan negotiated by LeverEdge?

When choosing which type of loan to take, I had to decide whether the protections that federal loans offered were worth the extra cost in interest. Federal loans essentially provide a form of insurance — they offer protections such as Income Driven Repayment Plans and Public Service Loan Forgiveness, which will help you if you have a lower paying job or are unable to make your monthly payments on a standard repayment plan. However, these benefits mainly apply to students pursuing public interest careers and come at a big cost (a difference of 1% adds up to thousands of dollars over the life of the loan). For more information about how to make this decision, see here.

In the end, I felt comfortable taking the LeverEdge loan going into my 3L year because I knew that I would be working at a law firm after graduation and I would very likely not need the federal government protections. The thousands of dollars saved on interest and fees will help me pay off my loans even faster. 

In summary, the choice of whether to accept (or keep) a federal or private loan is a personal decision with important financial consequences. To effectively make that decision you must first understand your options. That’s why we recommend all law students and alumni sign up with LeverEdge to have access to the interest rate discount we negotiate. Then you can put your interest rate numbers in the calculator to understand your potential savings, costs, and tradeoffs.. Signing up is free (and always will be) and there is no obligation to take a loan. It simply helps you understand what your options are.

“We genuinely want you to make the best financial decision for you and your family and will never recommend that you take a loan that is not best for you.”

We see most often that the students who take the LeverEdge deal are rising 3Ls with BigLaw job offers, students who are confident that they don’t want to go into public interest, and students who don’t need to borrow as much money to begin with. Graduates who are looking to refinance are also a huge part of members who take the deal.

Tell us a little bit about how LeverEdge can put law students in better financial positions than if they had taken out federal loans.

The best way to visualize the difference that LeverEdge can make over federal student loans is to use the student loan calculator to compare your options.

For example, assume that a student is about to enter their third year of law school and needs to borrow $60,000 for the semester. Under federal loans, the student would end up paying $24,529 in interest and fees over 10 years. With a loan negotiated by LeverEdge, an average student could save between $5,000-$10,000 depending on their credit score and if they decide to take a fixed or variable rate loan. The savings are even more dramatic if you choose to refinance with LeverEdge after you graduate (if you already have a private loan, that decision is a no-brainer) or if you use a LeverEdge negotiated loan for all three years of law school. For more information about fixed v. variable rates, and how to know which one is right for you, see here.

Most law students graduate with more than six figures of debt. How is LeverEdge helping you better manage your debt load?

My favorite part about LeverEdge is that they are an initiative started by students and for students — everyone on the team really wants you to make the best decision for your financial situation. The first step is knowing what your options are.

“I believe that every law student could benefit from running the numbers on their law school education.” 

Too often students shy away from researching their options and fail to make the best decision for their financial future. Whether it is before you choose which school to attend, while you are in school, or after you graduate, it is empowering to know exactly what things cost and how you can save money. 

To be honest, LeverEdge isn’t for everyone. If you are going into a public interest law career federal loans are probably a better choice. However, if you plan to work at a law firm after graduation, believe that you will not qualify for federal benefits after graduation, or simply want to pay as little money as possible, you can save thousands of dollars and pay off your loans quicker with a lower rate from LeverEdge.

How has COVID-19 affected the student loan market?

The COVID-19 global pandemic has caused federal student loan interest rates to fall to their lowest rates in years. The good news is that private student loans, and by extension the lower rate that you can get via LeverEdge, are also at historic lows. 

There are benefits to federal student loans, such as the federal government’s freeze on federal student loan interest through December 31, 2020, that are important to consider. For example, it is probably best to wait to refinance your federal student loans until after the freeze expires. However, the effects of COVID-19 have also impacted private student loans lenders — many of which offered forbearance during the pandemic. LeverEdge negotiates with lenders to maximize these benefits as well.

Is there anything else that you think is important for law students to know when it comes to financing their degrees?

Know that the first step is to always try and limit how much money you need to borrow. Consider the financial aid package that your law school offers (including scholarship money) before accepting. Once you are in school, always stay on the lookout for scholarships from your school, employers, interest groups, etc. LeverEdge compiles a list of law school scholarships that you can check out regularly.

“Don’t be afraid to ask for more free money.” 

It’s important to note that LeverEdge helps members in multiple ways. They vet lenders for those with good terms, they help you get the lowest rate possible, they push lenders to eliminate all fees (such as origination fees, application fees, and prepayment penalties), and they monitor lenders after you take your loan to make sure they uphold their end of the bargain. Federal loans in comparison have higher interest rates and have large origination fees (1.062% for the first $20,500 you borrow and 4.248% for everything after that). 

Remember that knowledge is power. Know your options so that you can be confident that you are making the best decision for your future.

As one of President Trump’s chief hydrological engineers, Mick Mulvaney did a great deal of swamp-draining before his unceremonious departure from the White House inner circle: pushing through a tax plan essentially written by the private equity and hedge fund industries; cravenly abandoning a lifetime of deficit hawkdom in service of the Dear Leader; telling bankers to pay up and get lobbying; and, last but not at all least, gutting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for the benefit of those screwing over consumers and payday lenders and the like (albeit not as quickly as the latter had hoped).

The Texas Supreme Court had already weighed in on the COVID exam question, resolving to offer an online option and a hotel-based in-person exam that one tipster branded a second-rate NBA bubble. But online tests have proven disastrous thus far and in-person exams are still death traps. That prompted Justice Eva Guzman to advocate an apprenticeship path to admission and offered applicants a brief moment of hope.

In an August 24 letter to the Texas Board of Law Examiners obtained by Bar Exam Tracker, Justice Guzman informs the Board that she would like to see apprenticeship added to its next set of recommendations to the state supreme court.

Noting that online bar exam efforts carry “an unacceptable degree of uncertainty,” Justice Guzman brands an examless apprenticeship option “prudent, if not essential.”

Without a doubt, some test-takers are disproportionately affected by COVID-19 and related issues, and for them, an in-person hotel exam or an online exam are not genuinely viable alternatives. For this group, these difficult times demand another licensing option. As the statistics show, the overwhelming majority of bar examinees eventually pass the bar This year’s bar applicants have been studying just as much as those in years past, if not more. Under the extant circumstances, the risk of licensing applicants who might not have passed the exam in an ordinary year is tolerable.

An excellent point! That’s not to say that apprenticeship-style licensing won’t present challenges. It’s hard enough to get jobs right now without making it a prerequisite to a license. And it obviously introduces another imbalanced power relationship in a profession fraught with them. But these are the sorts of challenges that we should set our licensing experts to solving. Joshua Lenon of Clio proposed an expanded role for law schools taking on graduates to do important work bridging the access to justice gap. That’s the sort of creative thinking states should be getting into.

And yet the court explicitly rejected this suggestion a mere four days later with Justice Busby citing budget concerns at the State Bar and Board of Law Examiners. A corkscrew worthy of Six Flags!^[1] Observers noted that back in July, there were five justices already on some form of diploma privilege or apprenticeship path and that wasn’t even including Justice Guzman. How the court got from that number plus the addition of Justice Guzman to a curt rejection of the possibility in less than a week is a mystery. Have we really gotten to the point where making licensing authorities put in a little hard work is a dealbreaker?

We’ve come a long way from some very famous words uttered in Texas back when we did things “not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”

---

[1] By the way, shouldn’t more people be asking why we’ve got theme parks celebrating all of those flags? Because one of the six is… problematic.

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

The legal profession has been put through the wringer in 2020 thanks to the pandemic. Now that the fall is almost upon us, dozens of firms that cut salaries to combat the economic turmoil that COVID-19 brought with it have now either partially or fully rolled back those reductions. At other firms, the news is a little less celebratory: attorneys are being laid off.

This may come as a shock to some, but Baker McKenzie is conducting layoffs. The Biglaw behemoth has over 6,000 attorneys worldwide and was recently ranked by Am Law as the fourth highest-grossing firm in the country with $2.92 billion in revenue in 2019. If you recall, back in April, coronavirus cuts came to the firm, with salaries slashed by 15 percent for all U.S. attorneys and business professionals making over $100,000, while those in Canada sustained a 10 percent reduction to their salaries.

Yesterday afternoon, sources let us know that cuts were underway at the firm, and that midlevel and senior associates were the subject of layoffs across several offices. We reached out to Baker McKenzie for confirmation, and received this statement:

As a global firm, Baker McKenzie has felt the impact of increased market and business disruption around the world. Over the past seven months, we’ve been quick to maneuver and adapt by staying close to our clients as we realign to meet their changing needs.

As such, we can confirm that we are reducing the size of our workforce in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. This reduction includes lawyers, other timekeepers and business professionals.

To say this was a hard decision is a massive understatement. We are deeply aware of the human impact of these decisions, and are treating our people fairly and with dignity. But having considered the full array of options, we are confident that this is the best path forward.

It is unknown at this time how many people lost their jobs at Baker McKenzie, what their severance packages look like, or what other kinds of assistance the firm will offer to those who now find themselves without employment.

On the bright side, the firm’s salary cuts will be a thing of the past in 2021. “Looking to the future,” a firm spokesperson said, “we can also confirm that the current salary reductions announced earlier this year in the U.S. and Canada will end on December 31, 2020.” Coupled with the layoffs announced in the very same statement, these salary cut rollbacks now seem like they’re some sort of a consolation prize.

If something like this is happening at an elite firm like Baker McKenzie, it must be worrisome for other firms that weren’t as financially well off in the first place. Best of luck to all those who are affected by the layoffs at Baker McKenzie.

If your firm or organization is slashing salaries, closing its doors, or reducing the ranks of its lawyers or staff, whether through open layoffs, stealth layoffs, or voluntary buyouts, please don’t hesitate to let us know. Our vast network of tipsters is part of what makes Above the Law thrive. You can email us or text us (646-820-8477).

If you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Layoff Alerts, please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the layoff alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each layoff, salary cut, or furlough announcement that we publish.

---

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Americans going through fertility challenges in the United States might be jealous of those in the United Kingdom and their access to universal healthcare. The United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) provides medical services free of charge, and that even includes fertility treatments. Brits love their healthcare so much that they even celebrated the NHS — through dance — during the 2012 Olympics’ opening ceremonies. But a report published earlier this month, might temper that trans-Atlantic envy.

Recently, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) used freedom of information laws to obtain the policies of England’s 135 clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), the regional rulemaking bodies as to which patients are eligible to receive fertility services and which are not. The discrepancies between the different regions’ rules were jarring and have led to essentially a postcode (the equivalent of what we Americans call a ZIP code) lottery. One patient might not be eligible for services that she would be eligible for, if only she were to live in the next shire over.

No Partner, No Treatment

Among the more disturbing of the discrepancies are the varying relationship requirements of the different regions. Almost half (48%) would not allow single women to obtain treatment according to their criteria. But of those, over 20 regions allowed for unmarried women to receive treatment, but only so long as they were able to prove they were in a “stable” relationship. Even within those regions, the definition of “stable” relationship varied. One region required evidence of three years in a relationship, another two years and proof of being “financially interdependent.” Wouldn’t financial independence be, like, better?

The varying — and frequently offensive — criteria did not end there.

Ageism. Fourteen of the regions refused to provide services for women over the (extreme geriatric) age of 35.

Weight discrimination. Over 96% of the regions would not provide treatment to women with a body mass index (BMI) of over 30.

Secondary infertility-ism. It is not uncommon for a person to experience infertility after having a child. This is referred to as “secondary infertility.” These patients were largely out of luck when it comes to eligibility for treatment in the varying regions. The study showed that most regions were only willing to provide treatments to those who had not had any children.

Smoking-ism. 116 of the regions (86%) deny treatment if either the patient or her partner smokes. Actually, I guess if you have to ration fertility care, maybe that one isn’t as bad.

Attorney Louisa Ghevaert, a leading UK fertility and family law specialist, described how the “current NHS IVF postcode lottery creates inequality, discrimination, unfairness, and misery for many, and that this needs to change.”

Should We Be Throwing Stones?

That’s a lot of discrimination! Good thing we live in the United States. Right? Well, maybe not.

First, of course, we do not, for the most part, have a system of socialized medicine. Instead, we rely on insurance to make medical services, including fertility treatment, affordable. Here, whether you have insurance that will provide some level of coverage for fertility treatments is also partially a lottery, based on who your employer is. If you work for Starbucks, Google, or Facebook, you’re in luck!

Additionally a growing number of states (19 so far) have passed fertility care access insurance mandates requiring that insurance providers in the state — that are subject to state law (a majority are governed by federal law under ERISA) — provide some level of fertility coverage. My home state of Colorado managed to squeak through a fertility access bill this last session, right before shutting down the legislature due to the pandemic.

Those Americans not provided fertility coverage through their employer or state mandates are generally out of luck. And that’s a majority of Americans. The options then are to pay tens of thousands, or more, out of pocket, or consider medical tourism, traveling to another country to find more affordable treatment. Either way, access becomes sharply limited along socio-economic lines.

The (Start To) An Answer

Given the declining fertility levels and high demand for fertility treatments, Ghevaert proposes a multistep solution, including the formation of a dedicated Ministry for Fertility to provide future direction specifically for the fertility sector. (Like a federal Department of Fertility; not like the Ministry of Magic, unfortunately.) This would bring greater cohesion, promote and prioritize the fertility space, and overcome the current fragmented approach.

Also, she explains, the “UK would be well serviced by a top level multidisciplinary strategy group to drive change and innovation, as well as identify and mitigate risk with joined up thinking between the technology, science, healthcare, fertility, education, economic and other sectors.” She proposes that such a strategy group should operate on a continuous basis, and be made up of strategic thinkers outside of the elected political elite. That sounds bloody brilliant (as the Brits would say). Can we get one of those too?

---

Ellen Trachman is the Managing Attorney of Trachman Law Center, LLC, a Denver-based law firm specializing in assisted reproductive technology law, and co-host of the podcast I Want To Put A Baby In You. You can reach her at babies@abovethelaw.com.

* A group of fireworks companies has agreed to dismiss a lawsuit involving New York’s COVID-19 restrictions. Guess the litigation didn’t start off with a “bang”… [New York Law Journal]

* President Trump has won a motion to temporarily delay the release of his tax records. [Fox News]

* A new lawsuit alleges that McDonald’s discriminates against black franchisees. [Reuters]

* A new global settlement plan has been advanced to dispose of claims accusers have against Harvey Weinstein. [Hollywood Reporter]

* A 105-year-old woman is leading a lawsuit seeking reparations for the 1921 Tulsa Massacre. [Guardian]

* Kanye West is suing to appear on the ballot for president in Wisconsin and Ohio. Maybe Kim K can put her law classes to good use… [Business Insider]

---

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

Ed. Note: Welcome to our daily feature Trivia Question of the Day!

According to American Lawyer’s Midlevel Associate Survey, which breaks the rankings out by specific offices, the Atlanta office of which international Biglaw firm is ranked best in midlevel associate satisfaction for the southern city?

Hint: The firm got a 4.644 out of 5 in overall satisfaction for their Atlanta outpost, which is one of 68 offices the firm has worldwide including its European headquarters.

See the answer on the next page.

This week, I continue my written interview with Nikki Breeland of Breeland Law, regarding her path to making her mark on the legal profession post-law school and clerkship. Please see below for Nikki’s answers to my second and third questions, focused on the mission of her new law firm and her advice to law students looking to gain a foothold in the face of the current challenges.

As usual, I have added some brief commentary to Nikki’s answers but have otherwise presented her answers as provided.

GK: 2) Why was it important for Breeland Law to have a clear mission statement in terms of the work you want to do for clients?

NB: From the first “personal statement” I wrote to apply to law school five years ago, I have maintained that my dream job, and the reason I became an attorney, is to protect the creators and artists that intricately weave a culture around us. When asked about my career path, I usually jokingly mention my time in the performance arts, and how I knew that while I loved dance, music, and the theater, my talent did not necessarily measure up, so I had to come up with something that allowed me into this space that I love. While mostly true, it doesn’t quite capture the passion I have for creators. When I grew up, I watched my dad come up with a new invention every week. I watched my mother excel at graphic design and painting, selling her work at flea markets. As an adult, I’ve seen my parents start their own publishing company. My uncle, my late grandmother, my sister, my mother, my dad, and my husband are published authors. I’m amazed at my family’s creativity and passion for creating, for making the world a more beautiful place. So, naturally, I became the attorney. Influenced by the small business owners in my life (my father-in-law owns a law firm, my mother-in-law owns a property management business, and my dad owns a retirement planning company), I became the one who desperately wants to make sure that creatives like artists, designers, musicians, authors, and entrepreneurs have a safe place and competent legal advice, so they can worry more about their art than their legal obligations and concerns. I aim to be a one-stop-shop — I want clients to be able to come to me with any problem they may have arising out of their position as creatives, and trust that I will do my very best to serve them.

Having a clear mission statement that serves as a beacon to the creative community was extremely important to me. I want anyone who visits my website to know I have a passion to serve the creative community. It acts as an anchor, and also as a promise to myself that this crazy venture will stay true to my dreams: to practice in entertainment and intellectual property in New York City representing the individuals who make our days a little brighter.

GK: As a lifelong NYCer, I can say without reservation that the creative community contributes tremendously to New York City’s standing as an irreplaceable place to live and visit. At the same time, the creative community — along with many of New York City’s small businesses — has been hit very hard in the current pandemic. If there was ever a time that members of that community could benefit from an advocate like Nikki, that time is now. For their sake, and for the sake of keeping New York City as vibrant as it can be, Nikki’s efforts are sorely needed. As such, it is great she has such a clear picture of the client base she wishes to serve. Moreover, it is always important for lawyers, no matter their career stage, to evaluate whether they find fulfillment in their practices. If the answer is no, but financial or other considerations mandate that a career pivot won’t work, it is worth considering whether pro bono can help fill the happiness gap. I suspect it can, especially if the pro bono efforts are undertaken in an area of law that is of personal interest, or in the service of a community whose needs are important to the lawyer offering the help.

GK: 3) What advice would you offer ambitious law students facing the daunting prospect of finding work in this pandemic?

NB: My biggest piece of advice for law students has always been to find a way to write every paper assigned by tying it into their desired area of practice and publish it. For example, in law school I took an Internet Law course, for which we were supposed to write a paper. So, I wrote my paper on Internet radio, and how the Music Modernization Act would change the way we listened to streaming music. This was just a run-of-the-mill paper I already had to write for class, and it is one of the publications I have now. Always, always, always, submit your class papers for publishing. Publications are often underutilized ways for law students to stake their claim as thought leaders in the professional world. By submitting articles for publication, you are going up against other law students, law professors, and law practitioners. To receive an offer of publication is personally gratifying, but it also has professional repercussions. In every interview I have had since law school, my publications have been brought to the forefront of the conversation. It is something that sets you apart, and it is something that requires almost no extra work.

My second piece of advice is to learn as soon as you can in law school what type of law you want to practice. I don’t necessarily mean the specific subject matter (like personal injury or intellectual property, although that will help a lot), but the people who are the most prepared for the job market are the ones that know whether they want to be litigators or transactional attorneys, and have stacked the experience needed to land a job doing what they want upon graduation.

Jumping off that, law students should make connections with attorneys who work in the type of law they want to work in. I’m not talking about the awkward “networking” that career services offices tend to suggest. I’m talking about starting and maintaining actual relationships with practitioners. This might look like keeping in touch with an attorney you grew up knowing, or even an internship/externship supervisor. It could also look like cold calling for coffee, but one-off meetings like that rarely do anything for you. I want to be clear that this is NOT a way to ensure you have a job. I feel like professional networking has a rap of being the answer to students’ job search problems. It’s not. What this does is it gives you resources for mentorship, people to bounce ideas off of, attorneys you can ask questions, and yes, maybe they can connect you with opportunities. But I feel like career services offices these days are throwing law students at practitioners like we can invent jobs for everyone with whom we speak. Use attorney networks correctly, and you can get so much more than a job.

Lastly, get rid of imposter syndrome. Everyone has it, which means no one needs to. Know that once you have a license to practice law, no one can stand in your way of doing just that. If job offers don’t come pouring in, entertain the idea of going on your own for a while and gaining experience. One way to feel more stable in this area is to take as many “practical” courses as you can: clinics, externships, drafting courses for aspiring transactional attorneys, trial advocacy for aspiring litigators, and stints in customer service and client intake will also help you prepare to be a successful attorney.

The legal practice has enough mercenaries. Be attorneys who employ empathy, critical listening skills, thoroughness, passion, honesty, and forthrightness, and you will find much more success with your interpersonal relationships with clients and opposing counsel. Be brave. Be caring. Be you.

GK: If you are a law student or considering law school — read the thoughtful, helpful, inspiring answer above. Take it to heart, act on it, and create the opportunities you need to have the career you want.

My thanks to Nikki for the insights and cooperation, and I wish her unbridled and lasting success with her new firm. It is always a privilege to hear from someone who represents both the present and future of IP practice, and I thank Nikki for agreeing to this interview. I am always open to conducting interviews of this type with other IP thought leaders, so feel free to reach out if you have a compelling perspective to offer.

Please feel free to send comments or questions to me at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome.

---

Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique, and Markman Advisors LLC, a leading consultancy on patent issues for the investment community. Gaston’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.

That no one, aside perhaps from Eddie Lampert, likes or respects Steve Mnuchin is pretty much a matter of record at this point. Not his boss, not his colleagues, not the Senate Minority Leader or anyone else in Congress, not his underlings (however few of them there are), not the companies he purports to regulate, not the Europeans, not high-end real-estate buyers, certainly not lower-end real-estate buyers, not college kids, not anyone who’s actually looked in to the things he’s done as Treasury secretary, not Ray Dalio, not Mike Novogratz, not even his father or his wife. That all being said, the animosity towards him within his own family goes much further and deeper than even people who’ve had the misfortune of meeting Mnuchin could have possibly imagined or hoped.