“Market for Attorney Employment Has Never Been Better,” PRWeb.com
“The economy has been tough on everyone…” opens Shpoonkle’s press release, in direct contradiction to its title. This, folks, is how not to write a press release.
The thing about Shpoonkle is that its reverse-auction model should be sophisticated enough to indicate whether the market for lawyers is healthy or not. If many lawyers are bidding cases down, that would indicate that it’s a buyer’s market for legal services. In a seller’s market, lawyers would find little use for Shpoonkle.
However, the press release goes way off the rails attacking the law grads it’s trying to entice.
“There seems to be a heightened sense of entitlement for many young grads regardless of the type of profession … Gone are the days of leaving school and expecting six figures. Regardless, of the type of school, reputation, or how much an education costs a student, it will take time and hard work to earn money these days. The good news is that there are jobs available for graduates on Shpoonkle. A legal degree is not a limitation, nor does it have boundaries. It represents many opportunities. While many recent law grads may be suing or touting the reasons not to go to law school, some of the core reasons to get a legal degree still remain.”
Death by straw man argument!
This paragraph is remarkable. Shpoonkle wants readers to believe that work is abundant, yet grads have to simultaneously hustle extra hard to get it. If you have to work hard to earn money, then how can the market for attorney employment be “never been better”? Seriously, this reads like Boomer lawyer satire. More importantly, I fail to see why Shpoonkle is targeting recent graduates specifically. There are plenty of lawyers it can appeal to, unless it charges registration fees, which makes this release seedy.
“Many law students have graduated law school, and are wondering now what? ‘Law school defenders note that huge swaths of the country lack adequate and affordable access to lawyers, which suggests that the issue here isn’t oversupply so much as maldistribution,’ writes David Segal of The New York Times in ‘Is Law School a Losing Game?'”
You know what problem these “huge swaths of the country” that “lack adequate and affordable access to lawyers” have? THEY’RE FUCKING POOR. They can’t afford their mortgages. They can’t afford to pay for the car they need to drive to work. They can’t afford their child support. They can’t afford a night out at Applebee’s. They can’t afford green eggs and ham, and they sure as shit can’t afford a lawyer, at any price.
“The common sense advice and Shpoonkle suggests to new law school graduates is: get practical experience. Just as doctors have to do a residency and pay their dues, after a costly medical school, attorneys have to do the same. As a new law school grad, opportunities exist to intern, donate time for legal aids or charities, or can find clients on various online legal service sites such as Shpoonkle.com.”
After attacking law graduates for feeling entitled to a living wage job that uses their education, now Shpoonkle is condescending to them. Did I mention that after quoting 249 words, this isn’t even halfway through the press release? It’s reading more like an advertisement…
“A law degree is considered a huge asset in business regardless of whether the law graduate actually practices law. ‘Most law graduates are still finding employment even if it is in a ‘non-lawyer’ type positions, like working for their law school in some capacity. And while some may bash these positions, they sound pretty good to me; decent hours and salary while gaining legal experience,’ wrote Jen Kehl in the Daily Record.”
How is (always ephemeral) law-school-created employment relevant to Shpoonkle? We’re at 321 quoted words.
“As a new attorney, there has to be the motivation to help people – clients. If the law student is going to Law School just to make money, then perhaps the student chose the wrong profession … If the expectation is to not become an advocate, being a lawyer was probably a wrong career choice. Clients come to an attorney at the worst or most stressful moments in life, and will seek kind help from an attorney.”
Now we’re insulting our prospective customers for “choosing the wrong profession” after telling them how important clients are. Also, what about those people who go to law school and help corporations or governments? Oh, they don’t need Shpoonkle, do they.
“Most good attorneys are dedicated to helping people and want to be ‘fairly’ compensated. New attorneys need to focus on the clients, and the jobs and money will follow.”
Wait, I thought no one was entitled to living wage work, what gives?
“No one can guarantee new attorneys a job, and ultimately it’s up to them to find one. However, Shpoonkle.com is there trying to make that process a little simpler. Thousands of legal professionals have already benefited from Shpoonkle.”
More condescension … and close.
That’s 464 quoted words, and I edited out a fair chunk, making it too long for a press release. It’s a rambling advertisement masquerading as PR that targets the wrong audience, and then it condescends and insults them. What’s weird is that Shpoonkle gains nothing whatsoever by defending the supposed value of law degrees. Sure, new lawyers need work, and perhaps Shpoonkle can deliver some clients to them, but lecturing them like an incompetent career services flak isn’t how to go about it.