Summer Employment

February 18th, 2016 / By Deborah J. Merritt

The National Association for Law Placement (NALP) recently announced “an encouraging view of law firm recruiting,” pointing to the fact that “the average size of law firm [summer] programs has nearly recovered to pre-recession levels.” That statement conflicts with accounts I have heard from students, so I looked more closely at the NALP report.

It turns out that the average size of 2015 summer programs reported to NALP matches that for programs reported to the organization for the summer of 2007: Reporting firms in both years averaged thirteen second-years in their summer programs. The number of firms reporting to NALP, however, has declined dramatically since 2007.

In 2007, 425 firms told NALP that they had employed a total of 5,379 second-year students in their summer programs. That works out to an average of 12.7 students per program. Last summer 335 firms reported a total of 4,329 second-year summer associates. That’s 12.9 students per summer program–but it’s also 1,050 students fewer than in 2007. What should we make of this? Do these figures really give “an encouraging view of law firm recruiting”? *

Why Are There Fewer Employers?

Why has the number of employers reporting data to NALP fallen since 2007? That number has declined 21.2%–more than one-fifth. I can imagine three different explanations for this change:

1. Some law firms have shifted from reporting on a per-office basis to a firm-wide one. NALP accepts both types of responses, so this shift would reduce the number of “employers” reporting their results.
2. Some law firms have abandoned summer programs, so they have nothing to report to NALP.
3. Some firms are maintaining summer programs but are no longer interested in participating in NALP’s surveys.

I suspect that all three explanations contribute to some extent, but none bode well for the summer employment market. If the decline in employers stems from a shift to firm-wide reporting, then the apparent rebound in program size is illusory: an average of 13 students per firm is quite different from an average of 13 students per office. Similarly, if the decline results from firms closing summer programs, then a rebound in the average size of remaining programs does not mean that the market as a whole offers the same opportunities as in 2007.

Finally, if some firms have simply stopped participating in NALP surveys, that suggests that they have become more local or school-specific in their recruiting strategies. Participating in NALP allows firms to connect with students nationally. A substantial decline in law firm participation in NALP initiatives does not suggest a particularly robust employment market.

Opportunities for Students

However we explain the decline in firms reporting summer programs to NALP, the news for students is uninspiring. Based on NALP’s figures, 5,379 second-year students worked as law firm summer associates in 2007. In 2015, the number was just 4,329–about one-fifth (19.5%) less.

These figures encompass only summer jobs at the large firms that report results to NALP. It’s hard to deduce the state of the overall summer market from positions at those firms. There seems, however, to have been a clear decline in the number of summer jobs at these largest firms. The average size of reported programs has rebounded to pre-recession levels, but that means little without accounting for the number of reporting firms.

What About Summer 2016?

The NALP report displays particular enthusiasm for upcoming summer programs, noting that “[f]or members of the Class of 2017
. . . the markers all ticked upwards for the third year in a row.” Those markers include the median and mean number of summer offers, as well as the percent of callback interviews resulting in offers.

Except . . . the total number of students who will actually work in these summer programs is lower than last summer. In the summer of 2015, as noted above, 4,329 second-years worked for the 335 firms reporting about their programs to NALP. A slightly higher number of firms (342) offered information about their upcoming 2016 programs. Those firms made a total of 12,996 offers. That sounds robust, but only 32.7% of the offers were accepted.

In other words, NALP’s firms are reporting just 4,250 second-years who accepted offers to participate in their 2016 summer programs. That number is lower than last year’s total.

It appears that many of the offers and callback interviews reported by NALP went to the same students. Once all of the dust settled, the size of 2016 summer programs shrank slightly compared to 2015. The totals, moreover, remain far below the figures reported for 2007 and other years during the boom.

Conclusion

Let me be clear: Hiring has improved since the worst days of the post-recession period. The summer jobs tracked by NALP, moreover, represent only a small part of the legal market. Before, during, and after the recession, most students found summer jobs with small firms, government agencies, and nonprofits–not with the large firms that participate in NALP surveys.

NALP, however, is over-selling improvements in the summer job market. It is a mistake to focus on the average size of summer programs without noting the significant decline in the number of reported programs. Similarly, the number of offers for summer spots means less than the number of positions available. To the extent one can draw conclusions from NALP’s limited survey, summer programs at large firms have stabilized at a new normal that is substantially smaller than before the recession.

* Note that in both years, the figures include some students employed by organizations other than law firms. “All but a few responses,” however, “were from law firms.” Like NALP’s press releases, I have treated the figures as representing law firm programs.