Debt: The Silent Killer

[zaprowsdower]

<p>

they do indeed have a Harvard lawyer on staff

</p>

<p>“Harvard lawyer on staff” is probably not very effective advertising, but it’s just about all they could say without getting into trouble. I doubt the state bar is going to be inclined to go easy on what is, really, a deceptive practice.</p>

<p>

As far as having upset clients, hey, well, I’m upset when I’m roped into terrible movies that just happened to have had great trailers

</p>

<p>This analogy really doesn’t merit a response, but again, upsetting clients is a real problem for small firms. They’re likely to file complaints and, as I said, the bar isn’t going to look favorably on your advertising practices when they see them. At the very least, clients are not going to refer anyone to you or retain you ever again, which will hurt your business.</p>

<p>

Again, because no firm is going to explicitly state that they’re doing so, similar to the fact that no firm is going to explicitly state their marketing strategy.

</p>

<p>But the point is to loudly advertise the Harvard connection. It shouldn’t be hard to find these firms, but you couldn’t find any that were using it really disingenuously.</p>

<p>

Those law firms know (or at least think) that you have other options.

</p>

<p>Which is exactly why they don’t want to waste their time and money hiring you, just to have you leave. It makes absolutely no sense to think that someone who makes more demands and is more likely to leave will get the job over someone who will work their butt off to stay employed.</p>

<p>

Again, keep in mind, you’re asking for a relatively low salary.

</p>

<p>It’s not low for a small firm.</p>

<p>

I think it’s quite reasonable that the law firm would then not have you work long hours, even if they know that you will probably be around for only a year or two. $40k a year is not that much money.

</p>

<p>It’s a lot of money for a small firm where the partners might not bring home $100K a year. They do not have any interest in hiring someone who doesn’t want to work hard and who will leave after a year or two. That’s a complete waste of time and money for them.</p>

<p>

and the list goes on regarding all of the various ways that companies try to cobrand themselves

</p>

<p>Except the number of firms that have tried to “co-brand themselves” by hiring a part-time Harvard associate is zero. The fact that companies try to co-brand themselves doesn’t mean that every ridiculous, poorly-thought-out scheme will work.</p>

<p>

for some reason, co-branding your company with another famous brand (such as the Peyton Manning brand) seems to work, or at least those companies think so.

</p>

<p>Again, it’s a huge leap from “co-branding schemes exist” to “this ridiculous plan will work”. Even in the extremely unlikely event that you could find someone who thought the Harvard brand was worth way, way more than the rest of the market did (remember, some people don’t even bother using it for free), and could actually afford to pay for it, why would they? They would be bidding against themselves, since nobody else thought it was worth anywhere near as much as they did. If you thought a '99 Civic was worth $40K, there would still be no need for you to pay that much, since you could out-bid any other buyer well below that price.</p>