A law student client – already an MBA – said she needed convincing to drop out of her third-tier school.
I told her to calculate the return on investment for the final three semesters.
She crunched the numbers.
“Debit-wise, I’ve burned $80k in savings and I’m looking at another $100k of borrowed money. On the credit side, I might find a low-salary doc review gig.” She pretended to scratch notes. “So… big loans, interest payments, inadequate cash flow…opportunity cost of eighteen more wasted months learning legal mumbo-jumbo followed by the bar exam…”
“In other words…” I egged her on.
“I’d be totally screwed.” She affixed the cap on her pen. “Thanks. I’m convinced.”
I posed the question we were dancing around: “Why are we having this conversation?”
My client laid out the background: “My dad’s a lawyer. My mom’s a lawyer. My little brother’s taking his LSAT. This is what my family does. If I quit, I feel like I’m failing.”
She added: “It seems like it was different in my parents’ day.”
That’s because it was. A generation gap has opened in the legal world. On one side there are lawyers over-50, for whom law still looks like a safe, reliable ladder to the upper-middle-class. From the other side – where their kids are perched – law more closely resembles un ascenseur pour l’échafaud.
My client’s parents live in a time warp – a world trapped in a snow globe. Mom’s worked for 25 years as an in-house lawyer for a state college – safe, not terribly stressful (or interesting) work, with a decent salary, good hours and benefits. Dad’s worked for decades as general counsel for a local business. It’s no wonder that for them – and their generation – law still epitomizes a safe, low-stress career with good pay and benefits.
These over-50 types can’t imagine how bad it gets nowadays for someone calling himself an attorney. Their Weltanschauung doesn’t encompass windowless warehouses packed with contract lawyers logging 18-hour shifts of doc review for hourly wages, no benefits. Mom and Dad haven’t seen young partners at top firms getting de-equitized and struggling to snare in-house positions. If they knew that reality, they’d also realize their own sort of safe, steady work with benefits, a decent wage and reasonable hours constitutes a pipe dream for a kid graduating law school today.
Another client of mine – a 20-something from a decent school entering her third year in biglaw – summed up her reality thus:
“Really? I spent myself into life-long debt, endured hours of property law lectures, analyzed Erie problems on brutal exams, crammed for the bar…all so I could waste two years on doc review, then wait to get laid off (with the de rigueur bad review and zero career prospects) so someone younger and cheaper can take my seat? Really?”
If she’d studied computer science, or gotten an MBA or just quit school after college, she might have become a better-paid “e-discovery provider.” As a JD, it’s strictly “e-discovery peon.” In any case, five years from now a computer program will do doc review all by itself. As one client put it: “that’s when attorneys start living in cardboard boxes on the sidewalk.”
This isn’t your grandfather’s biglaw.
It’s astonishing, the degree to which misguided Ozzie and Harriet nostalgia still convinces’ parents to pour money into law school – and only law school – for their kids. They steer their kids towards law at the expense of other degrees – any other degree – which might lead to an actual future. It’s lunacy – but I see it all the time.
One client’s father insisted he would pay his son’s tuition – but not for urban planning, only law. The kid had to get a “practical” degree, that “guaranteed him a future.” It took this twenty-something a year – with his shiny new $180,000 JD – to score a low-paying six-month fellowship at a not-for-profit. Six months later – one day for every thousand dollars his father blew on this “practical” degree – he’s back on the street, scratching for whatever he can find, which is to say, not much.
Another client’s rich uncle wouldn’t consider funding his nephew’s start-up – just law school. No wild-eyed schemes for uncle – he wanted the safe route to success for his young charge. But the kid wasn’t naïve – he saw his friends graduate from law school with zero prospects and wanted none of it. On the other hand, given uncle’s obduracy, he had no choice. The kid finally took the tuition and used his law school dorm as an office for his start-up. After the first month or two he gave up on Law entirely, and started cutting classes. He got kicked out after a few months, but the plan worked – uncle has plenty of money, and the kid got a few months free rent for a place to live and an office for the new business (which is progressing nicely and may soon turn a profit.)
There’s still a generation out there that thinks “safe, reliable…” and – don’t laugh – “worth the money” when they hear “law school.” These folks cling to the notion that it’s reasonable to expect your children to do what they did: finish law school, put time in at a firm, and settle into upper-middle-class contentment. It’s no different from the smug Tea Party graybeards who protest “big government handouts” while luxuriating in Medicare. If you grew up amid – and still enjoy – abundance and opportunity, it’s tough to grasp the reality of a new, younger generation for whom health insurance – and a steady job – are aspirational goals.
The generation gap in the legal world is symptomatic of a larger malady. The US has become a nation defined by the ever-widening gulf between rich and poor. The wedge creating that gulf is the collapse of social mobility. As Sarah Palin might say: How’s that “American Dream” thing workin’ out for you?
Not so good.
Even at the top – the elite biglaw shops – there’s a change. These institutions aren’t merely hierarchical anymore, as in a pyramid of command. At this point, it’s more like aristocrats and serfs. The aristocrats are the one’s with the ear of the king – the client – the Mr. One-Percenter with billions who generates business.
In the old days, if you lacked polished manners and connections with the super-wealthy, you might have become a “service partner.” Nowadays, they’re a dying breed. Good lawyers are a dime a dozen, and with more money concentrated in the hands of ever-fewer ultra-rich clients, you can either bring in a big fish, or you are expendable.
As one of my clients put it: “If you’re coming from a lower middle-class background, like me, you’re never going to fit in at my firm, because you’re never going to bring in any work.” She’s shy and bookish, and grew up in the Mid-West without much money. That never used to be a problem – she’s entirely professional and a fine lawyer. But no more.
The other day a partner at her firm proposed she learn to play golf. “He said it would help me ‘nurture client contacts’. Can you see me playing golf? I grew up in Nebraska. ‘Schmoozing’ meant knitting sweaters and baking pies for church socials.”
Back when the USA wasn’t owned by Super-PACs (thank you, US Supreme Court!), the practice of law – like medicine and other professions – was an engine of social mobility. You could work your way up as a lawyer and lift yourself out of the blue-collar world. Now firms are returning to their old role as closed preserves of the elite, resting atop sweatshops populated by disempowered laborers – just as our country as a whole is returning to its Gilded Age status as a plutocracy of billionaire monopolists.
How much have things changed? Earning a JD nowadays is typically an express train back into poverty – real poverty, as in worrying about a place to live and food to eat. Massive loans that are not dischargeable in bankruptcy are no joke, and while Law may no longer be a ladder to the upper-middle class, it can be (while I’m mixing metaphors) the empty elevator shaft you hurtle down on the way to the bottom: a new, professional-degree-bearing underclass. If you owe $180k of non-dischargeable debt and are out of work with little or no income, you disappear off the social map. You experience indentured servitude – what the esteemed sociologist and Harvard professor, Orlando Patterson, terms “social death.” His book on the topic is entitled “Slavery and Social Death.” If you don’t even have a job, you’re not even an indentured servant: You’re more like an outlaw.
If you manage to squeeze into a top Ivy League school – and somehow find the money to pay for it – then adapt to life with the elites, you might rise to riches like the hero of a Horatio Alger story. You might also win the Super Lotto – they both happen, but most commonly to people you hear about, not to you.
Otherwise, if you really want to borrow a small fortune and blow three years of your life on law school, prepare for horrors out of the Nineteenth Century. That was the last time our social safety net frayed this badly, making it frighteningly possible for just about anyone to fall into the terrible gap between this nation’s naïve view of itself – and a far harsher reality.
========
This piece is part of a series of columns presented by The People’s Therapist in cooperation with AboveTheLaw.com. My thanks to ATL for their help with the creation of this series.
If you enjoy these columns, please check out The People’s Therapist’s new book, Way Worse Than Being a Dentist: The Lawyer’s Quest for Meaning
I also heartily recommend my first book, an introduction to the concepts behind psychotherapy, Life is a Brief Opportunity for Joy
(Both books are also available on bn.com and the Apple iBookstore.)
Excellent column, Will. Spot on.
As a 2008 graduate of a fourth tier school with 140k in debt, I still take issue with your column. I am working year to year, with a few hot prospects but far from what I would call job security. I make a decent income now, but I was unemployed for a few months, which needless to say, put me in a dark place. Clearly, anyone looking to take the plunge and work on their JD needs to take a serious look at their options and understand that the job market will never be what it was like pre-2007.
With all that said, I don’t know any line of work that is a nice, steady way into the middle class. Becoming lawyer, like so many things in life, is a risk. The rewards can be a six-figure salary. The losses….well, I think you’ve got those covered.
Out of curiosity, what percentage of your clients are clueless law students/wounded lawyers/power partners?
And by that I mean, “people who are mired in LawWorld”?:
Horrendously depressing article…because it is so true. My younger brother want to go to law school despite my warnings. I went to a 2nd tier law school, accumulated $120k in debt, put in six years at a mid-size Chicago firm where I was treated like garbage for barely decent pay. Thankfully I have somewhat of a happy ending… I won (IMHO) the job lottery when I landed a position with the federal gov’t as a staff attorney for a large agency. Now I have a decent wage, excellent hours, and fantastic benefits. I will hopefully never slave away for some a** in a firm again.
Much of what you say is true here, but it represents a very narrow perspective IMO, heavy on the importance of Biglaw and the inevitability of 100K or more in law school debt.
As a 2010 grad who intentionally choose to attend a TTT on full scholarship rather than pay full freight at a top 20 school, I have limited sympathy for a the vast majority of law students who refuse to consider that possibility. My choice limited my options – I was never going to end up at a V20 firm in New York or Chicago – but it also limited my downside. I’m currently employed at a top firm in my market with limited debt. Pretty solid deal. There isn’t much doc review in my life either, because at the level just below Biglaw, fewer associates are hired, so they tend to do real work.
The majority of my friends from law school are also currently employed in some legal capacity, supporting themselves. Some have horrific debt loads, some have none. They’re doing legal jobs that some New York or LA lawyers would probably look down on, but most of them seem happy.
Again, much of what you say is true. That’s undeniable. Expectations need to be adjusted. Law school isn’t a ticket to the middle class. Hardly anything is these days.
What’s also true, however, is that law school is one of the very few remaining educational options where those who do very well can be guaranteed a $160k salary to start. There’s the rub, of course, and why it remains attractive. Everyone thinks they’re a special little flower and sells out to chase those jobs, often declining generous scholarship money to improve their chances at Biglaw. The more people who join the chase, the more people who lose. Ultimately, that’s a matter of individual responsibility as much as law school misrepresentation IMO.
“As a 2010 grad who intentionally choose to attend a TTT on full scholarship rather than pay full freight at a top 20 school, I have limited sympathy for a the vast majority of law students who refuse to consider that possibility.”
Of course, life turned out ok for me, so I have no sympathy for you. How convenient.
People also have to consider that most lawyers can’t stand BigLaw for more than a few years. The attrition rates are extraordinary, and the entire business model is based on people leaving (one way or another).
So, even if someone gets the $160K job, they’re unlikely to have it more than a few years.
As your public service for the day, PLEASE make anyone you know considering law school read these: http://thegirlsguidetolawschool.com/law-school-myths-debunked/.
At least they’ll be informed, even if they opt to go anyway.
Limited sympathy, to be precise.
And the point is, if the decision hadn’t worked out OK for me on the career front, I wouldn’t be hobbled with the debt that’s at the center of this debate. That was a strategic consideration from the beginning – one that more people should make IMO.
Here’s my thinking on this issue.
By going to a T14/T6/Harvard (do the T14’s even work anymore?), you are giving yourself a ticket to a “top firm in your market”, meaning the level below BigLaw regardless of your class rank.
So, if you aren’t going into BigLaw, by going to a top school, you are increasing your chances to get a “Midwest associate” job, but you take on debt to do so.
So, you actually took the riskier approach with respect to employment prospects, but the less risky approach with respect to debt.
I expect that you actually had to do things like attend class and study. At the better law schools, you generally don’t have to do those things, so that’s another downside to attending the school you attended.
Thank you.
The constant barrage of doom and gloom akin to “no one go to law school ever. You’ll hate your life forever.” has been getting tiresome. There are plenty of people who have no business going to law school (I’m looking at you newly minted BA holders with no idea what to do next, for starters), but that doesn’t mean it’s a terrible decision for every single last person who attends. This type of coverage is certainly helpful because it might just stop prospective students and at least make them think before taking such a risk; but 100% pessimism about anything working out for law grads is not only untrue, I think it harms what should be the underlying message of “please, PLEASE give this one a serious think and really be positive that this is the right choice for you. Don’t be so wrapped up in ‘the rankings’ and make a smart choice on which school to go to. Also, don’t pay ticket. Really, don’t.”
Part of the reason people are able to overpay so much for law school is that the feds will subsidize your loan and will block it from being discharged. Basically enticing students with artificially low rates and then allowing them to post life bonds to guarantee those debts.
If they stopped subsidizing these loans, we might see students looking more critically at law school debt. The cheapest solution for the gummint is to stop paying people to get education just for the sake of education. If education pays, then people will invest. Non-subsidized loans are also (if I understand correctly) easier to discharge in bankruptcy. Though nondischargeable might be a hard feature to avoid in the school loan arena, given that most students have no collateral other than speculative future income streams.
Of course, the real problem is the huge volume of people who are willing to pay any amount of tuition just to tell friends and family that they are going to law school. These people distort the price of legal education well beyond its value. And politicians don’t get elected by denigrating higher education, which is akin to religion, the military or school teachers in its appeal to our emotions (all these things have great value, but we don’t like critical analyses of their value). Making people pay the full cost of their school loans is invariably interpreted as an attack on the very idea of knowledge (though nobody thinks our lack of federal grocery-shopping loans means politicians hate nutrition).
No politician gets elected by telling the middle class to send their children to vo-tech school for three semesters to become a radiology tech or a surgical assistant, even though health care is still expanding more than most industries. Politicians have to reassure people that they’ll protect their beautiful children from being molested, protect their genius children from getting subpar education, and protect their fragile children from terrorists and digital nipples. Telling them to lower their expectations or bear the costs of their own exaggerated fears and anxieties is a good way to get tossed out of office.
Ideally we could have one track of law school for the people who want to show off and one track of law school for the people who just want to get jobs. That way the people who want to be lawyers don’t have to get priced up just because some people have very expensive chips on their shoulders.
Actually, I want to say something way more radical. In an era of Wikipedia and open source everything, how much do we need law schools?
Seems like the law firms could rely on the LSAT directly (as well as undergrad prestige and GPA) to find their most promising hires, and then spend a couple years training those people as apprentices for little or no money. They could train in part-time programs supplemented by free online knowledge platforms like Wikipedia and Google Scholar and the multitude of law blawgs. The rest of their time would be spent working on actual issues at the law firm (on the job training).
It would be far superior for students, because you know from the start whether you have a position. Law firms might not like the outlay of a training camp, so they’d probably use outside contractors to handle that, but at least they could have a much more direct sense of how the apprentices would perform as lawyers. Maybe they could reduce their staff requirements by using the apprentices for some of the clerk and paralegal work. If they fired an apprentice, there wouldn’t be any significant loans on the student (maybe COL loans?), just the opportunity cost of time in the program. The main downside to graduates of the program would be getting a less general legal education, thereby making it harder to switch practice groups if your initial apprenticeship was too narrow.
Of course, this system would not work because state licensing usually mandates attendance at an ABA school. But if that hurdle were removed, we could create basically an updated version of the “law reading” system that trained lawyers in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Far cheaper to enter that program, and far less speculative for job seekers. Would also make it much cheaper to leave the law entirely, if you somehow made it through an apprenticeship without realizing you hate the work.
Completely spot-on, in my opinion. I went to a top-10 law school after being raised in an often impoverished working class family from the midwest. I have been constitutionally incapable of working in private law firms; I really lack the self-control to swallow my emotions about those environments. I’ve tried, with expected results.
Working in non-profit land is better in some regards (hours, loan repayment assistance programs) but stressful in a host of other ways — lack of resources (that wonderful trip to the county law library b/c legal databases cannot be afforded), lack of HR departments, pay at 1/10th the market rate for an attorney of equal maturity.
Also, I’m finally understanding why everyone hates lawyers, even their clients. Why do contracts have to be 30 pages long? In one recent situation for me, because regulations and contract law give good reason for the disclosures, etc etc. So the boss pushes back, the co-workers push back, I feel an ethical obligation to protect the organization but it’s like constantly dealing with the oppositional defiance of a 2-year old — constantly.
My point is that the work is no less grueling than friends in IT or graphic design or teaching, yet it lacks the camaraderie of those professions, and pays far less. Where is the upshot?
Does someone in their third or fourth year of biglaw really have zero career prospects? That’s definitely not my own observation – it seems like people jump ship to something lower paying and less stressful. If your three-year sentence at a biglaw firm ended in being totally fucked, wouldn’t we be hearing about it the same way we hear about how going to most law schools leaves you totally fucked?
I’m seeing a lot of people getting to their 3d year having done very little beyond doc review. The firms are slow – many of them, at least – so the associates make it to 3d year and want to leave to another firm, but they don’t have much experience and it’s not like there are many openings out there, especially if you don’t have a top-tier Ivy League JD.
Got it, thanks for the info!
Another thing is that “lower paying” is kind of a form of death. Well, a form of suicide, really. Death of your future?
Retreating into something lower paying and less stressful is something that I have done. And it left me feeling ruined and broken more than relieved and happier.
I keep reading about how the legal profession as we know it is dying, but all of the postings refer to America. Is this article applicable to Canada as well?
Will — Thanks for sharing. Like so many of your posts, this is spot on and well said.
I enjoy your frank and soulful articles. If you are in California, I’d treat you to coffee and pick your brain. My parents have a mentality similar to this lady’s. I am a first generation immigrant and the first to be a lawyer on both sides of either family. I am proud of what I’ve gained from being an attorney but am seeking opportunities outside the law. Since no one else in my family faces this issue, I feel alone in my struggles. Mxu111@yahoo.com
Here’s an idea: Stop acting like a peon. You went to law school to be a lawyer, not to be a lawyer’s bitch. We only get what we are willing to take, so say “Thanks, but no thanks” to that big law job and find your own clients.
I second that.
*sigh*
I went to law school because I wanted to be a lawyer. Because law is interesting and I am a born advocate. Because my mind works that way. Because I am that person who got a detention (just one, mind you) in high school for something that honestly was not against the rules, and I was so frustrated at the unfairness that I appealed the detention to the school board and won. Because I didn’t for an instant mind that it took me 20 times longer to appeal the detention than it would have taken to serve it.
I went to work in a BigLaw firm because I wanted to. I worked as a paralegal first to test out the atmosphere. I surprised myself a little by being happy. I have been happy now for more than 15 years. I like Class A office space with pretty views out my window. I like having smart colleagues who work hard. I like having deals in the newspaper. I like having clients whose problems are complex enough that it’s really worth it to pay smart people to figure out interesting and novel solutions to them. When I was an associate I liked having the chance to try out new skills on small projects. Now that I am a partner I like watching my associates do that too.
And along the way, I found that law school was my ticket from grinding poverty in my childhood (I don’t have a high school yearbook because I couldn’t afford the $14) to never having to worry about money again. Is that why I worked my ass off from the time I was a child until now (and why I still do)? Nope. I worked because I like this stuff. But no one could tell me it was a bad financial bet. It has lifted me and my entire family to a world we would never have known.
I’m not saying everyone’s life will be like mine. I’m saying it’s irresponsible for a man like Will Meyerhofer, who admittedly didn’t really EVER like being a lawyer and admittedly wasn’t very good at it, to argue to an entire generation of young people that law school is a bad investment.
The better argument, Will, is this one.
— If you aren’t really sure you want to go to law school, don’t do it because you think it’s a good monetary investment.
— If you aren’t really sure you want to do the work that lawyers do, you probably aren’t sure you want to go to law school.
— If you don’t really know what lawyers do, you probably want to figure that out with some real in-the-trenches experience before you make the investment to go to law school.
— But if you know what it means to advocate for a client (even all night, even under tough conditions, even if it’s not as good a monetary investment as some other thing you could dream up to do with your life) and if the idea of advocating for a client makes your heart sing, than GO DO THAT THING WITH YOUR LIFE. Take the risk. Invest the time. Find the personal courage to get past the difficulties and the initial barriers and some of the tough personalities you’ll find along the way (tough personalities are everywhere). Because if it’s the thing you really want to do, it can be a wonderful career.
Do what you love. The money will follow.
“I’m not saying everyone’s life will be like mine. I’m saying it’s irresponsible for a man like Will Meyerhofer, who admittedly didn’t really EVER like being a lawyer and admittedly wasn’t very good at it, to argue to an entire generation of young people that law school is a bad investment.”
In today’s metaphysical lesson, we learn that macroeconomics and microeconomics are different.
Not of the Austrian school, I see . . .
Just to be clear, I entirely agree with your point.
@Aldous Huxley —
At first blush, it seems like you make a valid point — do what you like, the money will follow. But much of what you say is badly flawed, and misses the point of Will’s post.
You were successful and you enjoy doing your job. That’s great. But the point of Will’s article is not that it’s impossible to do those things as a lawyer, it’s that the opportunities to even be successful — even if one likes the work — have virtually vanished for all but a few. Your post assumes that “personal courage” and a passion to be a successful attorney, is all one needs to be successful as a lawyer. Not so. You need more than that. A huge factor in being successful as a lawyer, one you overlook completely, is luck — getting in at the right time, getting in with the right people, and, at a fundamental level, getting the opportunity do work in an environment where you can excel. Liking the work helps, but having a desire to be an advocate and good lawyer isn’t going to create jobs for 90% of law graduates who are without. To suggest that all one needs to be successful as a lawyer is a passion to be an advocate and “personal courage” is incredibly naïve. Moreover, as a partner, you’re obviously not of the generation to whom Will speaks to in his post when he advises against going to law school. You apparently “got in” before the market changed in a fundamental way, so your success says nothing about whether Will’s advice is sound to people pondering law school now.
Also, your statement that Will’s post is “irresponsible” is wrong on so many levels. First, whether he liked big law or being a lawyer is irrelevant to the question of whether going to law school is a good investment. Second, he’s not just basing his argument on his own experience (like you). His post clearly cited several examples taken from his work as a therapist.
Lastly, that you list “class A office space,” money, and “having deals in the paper” as reasons you like your job, just shows how removed you are from the realities of what the vast majority of recent law graduates will face, and suggests that you may be the irresponsible one.
While I enjoyed reading this article, it irks me to observe that no article on this site is complete without a gratuitous dig at the right side of the political spectrum, such as this one:
“It’s no different from the smug Tea Party graybeards who protest ‘big government handouts’ while luxuriating in Medicare.”
I get a couple of hundred dollars deducted from my salary every month to pay for Medicare tax — it doesn’t seem like much of a “handout” to me. Like Social Security, I’ll be getting back what I myself paid into the system over my entire working life. And “luxuriating”? It’s getting harder and harder for Medicare patients to find decent doctors as more and more doctors stop accepting Medicare because the reimbursement rates don’t cover their expenses.
Agree wholeheartedly with Jasmine. WM’s off-topic (and inaccurate) political asides are undermining the credibility of this blog’s content.
I’m sorry if my dig seemed gratuitous. It wasn’t meant to be.
YOU GO, WILL.
Instead of starting at a top-ten school and a top 100 firm several years ago, to get stuck in doc review with a gaggle of colleagues who have been laid off for no good reason on the way to becoming partner, I wish I had gone to a state school for a part time law degree (I was really interested in it, and enjoy having had the experience, just not at the pricetag), and gone to art school full time instead. I probably would have been rolling in it by now. For me, that would meaning at least I would not be in the red. Not to mention the expectations of my entire family, my friends, and all who supported me being shattered in the process (who really don’t know much about law or the legal market and what it’s become).
Plus, I see lots of optimists here. For those of you who are doing so great in the legal market, please send all your extra millions to me: ranstermonster@yahoo.com or buy my art at http://www.artwanted.com/ranikarnik
For all donations over 5K USD, I will be sure to create a special fund in your name, and send you an engraved plaque for your wall! Thanks!
First time poster here. Will, I’ve enjoyed your various articles and agree with most of what you have been saying about the state of the legal market.The one thing I disagree with here is the notion that all/most over-50 lawyers have been living la dolce vita. I am someone over 50 (gulp) with degrees from Top 20 schools land many years as an associate at the West Coast offices of Big Law firms in the go-go days of the 80s and 90s and other jobs at midsize firms, mostly doing complex business/commercial litigation. However, I have been having no luck finding full time employment at any law firm and have been doing contract work (even doc review!!) Most people I have worked with over the years (including former partners at large firms) all of whom are at least in their late 40s now are no longer at even mid-size firms, forced to open up solo practices or in the case of women, dropping out of law entirely as the ONLY thing that matters at firms is having a big book of business. I doubt that any of the solo practices have resulted in the lawyers making anything close to what they did when they were junior partners in BigLaw. In-house jobs are basically not an option for those who primarily did litigation, and there are few govt jobs for lawyers in California.
I think he’s talking about the over-50s with books of business sufficient to be part of the modern plutocratic aristocracy.
I’ve only been out of law school since 2000 and already I know people who made partner in BigLaw and subsequently went out on their own.
And I already know of people who went into the woods and blew their brains out, quite literally. One doctor and one lawyer.
And remember people, if you are going to kill yourself, do so responsibly. There’s nothing worse than having your body discovered by your 14 year old daughter.
Crazy JP – I just wrote a punk rock song TWO DAYS AGO called, “Practice Safe Suicide” (even recorded a youtube for it as well!) on just that topic! Universal Consciousness, buddy!!
Will, keep keepin it real!!
I had a friend at Columbia (undergrad) whose family had immigrated here. He used to keep a copy of the Constitution in is pocket at all times. He, like me, went to an ivy law school, and joined a top firm when he graduated, where he spent many long years.
More recently, though, for the past couple years we were both in the doc review game.
The promise the Constitution, this country, and law school had was in many ways an empty one. It has been a hard life trying to stay above water and maintain any sort of health insurance. There is no quality of life.
My advice would be do NOT go to law school unless you are prepared for any consequence that may ensue. Even if you are straight-A students and hard workers like we were, with a plan and a passion to go to law school, here are NO sure bets in this game.
Rani, I know of other undergrad and law school grads from Ivy schools who also started out in Big Law but are doing doc reviews. I really feel for everyone in this situation. Definitely time to think of careers besides practicing law.
JP – Of course there are people who have made/or will make partner at big firms. However, it is truly highly unlikely that most of them will survive there unless they continuously bring in business of at least $ 1 million annually. Also, some people who opened solos will succeed but few will make the kind of money they envisioned in law school or as associates in big firms. Bottom line is that law is not a guaranteed way to make it into the upper middle class (nice house in good suburb, summer/ski vacations, country club, luxury cars, etc.) or stay there anymore.
I actually thought it was $2,000,000 these days.
One of my goals in going to law school was to avoid working in a chemical plant or around dangerous materials as a chemical engineer and make more money on a future basis.
I succeeded in avoiding the falling into a batch of acid part. I’m dependent on TV advertising right now to generate work. That’s functional, at least.
WORD. (Good points 50+ and JP!!)
Time to change the business plan for ALL of us.
And provide some REAL value to society!
I thank WIll a lot for giving me courage to even make these changes. It is a huge mental shift. Especially for stubborn minded lawyers like us 😉
– Rani (created new Gravitar name “RansterMonster” because Rani was taken)
Hey, buddy, I have not figured out the way to subscribe
I’m not sure either…there must be a way to “follow” my blog on WordPress…c’mon, you can figure it out.