I don’t mind this debate - agree w/Publisher that on a law school thread there are bound to be strongly held, forcefully presented positions - by people who were trained in argument/persuasion/analysis!
There are many people I know who work in the law and don’t do billable hours (inhouse counsel, government [multiple levels], non-profit). I also agree that there are people who don’t go into it for the money (it wasn’t my only goal) - so those folks not “making it” to big law is not a failure, it can be a well-thought-out, alternate life choice/set of values.
I also think it’s important to look closely at comparisons. If one is considering the entire legal profession (including those who struggle to get into big law and fail, those who never find any sort of fulfilling legal job, graduates of “non-top 15” schools, those who carry a lot of debt for many years that they cannot afford) - then that should be compared to all aspects of suggested alternate careers.
For instances, careers in business are not just the very high-end - exciting start-ups with lots of funding (often from personal connections), “high finance with IPO set asides” or upper level management executives. The business world also includes those who aren’t Wall Street execs - they are at mid or low-level manager positions in chain stores - working killer hours, subject to layoffs through corporate consolidation at the drop of the hat, fielding complaints from the public and lawsuits - and (as I’ve seen) not feeling very “stretched and fulfilled” at those jobs.
If we’re to look comprehensively at the upsides and downsides of a profession, it helps to look just as comprehensivly at the alternatives - both pro and con.
I think this is particularly important when parents and others reading these threads may be trying to get a sense of things for students they are mentoring.
There are LOTS of jobs in the fields you cite which do not require a law degree- so perhaps starting to explore those things makes sense. Kids think that anything with the word Law or justice means you need to be a lawyer- not true.
The vast majority of jobs in public policy (where things like criminal justice reform, alternative sentencing, bail reform, holistic defense get researched, evaluated, etc.) do not require a JD. Advocacy work does not mean legal work does not mean becoming a lawyer. Take a look at some of the bio’s of folks on the Hill- you can lead a Senator’s policy team, run a significant committee, be in a leadership role at a huge federal agency dealing with the kind of issues you care about- with a BA, or a BA plus a Master’s. Or a doctorate in the field of interest.
I meet lots of “former” lawyers who thought they needed a JD to do what they wanted to do. And they don’t- but they discovered it after the fact, because for decades, smart kids who weren’t engineers and didn’t want to become doctors went to law school.
You want to move the needle on the environment/climate change? There are a LOT of people smarter than me who believe that only lever big and rich enough to do that is the corporate sector (the government could- but we are too politicized right now with a significant percentage of the population who have been told that climate change is a liberal hoax). And that space won’t be for the lawyers- it will be for subject matter experts on carbon, and specialists in alternative fuels, and supply chain experts who can figure out how to get goods to consumers without consuming tons of raw materials which just go into landfills.
Nike hires designers who can figure out how to use less plastic in their shoes. Starbucks hires branding professionals who can figure out how to make reusable cups “cool” and not dirty and gross.
If my kid were interested in social justice law- I’d encourage him to get a BA in Psych or sociology, and then a Master’s in policy. The people who will ultimately figure out how to reduce incarceration rates in this country won’t be lawyers (that’s not their job. They either prosecute or defend, but they don’t deal with the big systemic stuff). The people who will figure out whether “broken window policing” is a successful law enforcement tool, or a racist and misogynist policy which puts the women who sell small amounts of drugs behind bars while the male drug lords who reap billions of dollars exploiting people go out to clubs at night and drive fancy cars-- lawyers can’t fix this. It’s a legal issue- but the solution will come from a multipronged effort by people who understand a lot more than “what’s the minimum sentence for dealing in fentanyl”.
That’s a helpful post, blossom. I agree w/almost all of what you said.
I would just add that there are some lawyers who are involved in policy and who do contribute to decisions on important public issues such as those you’ve mentioned. It’s not just litigation and billable hours. And those jobs are not impossible to get, either.
Jolynne- I have several family members who have those kinds of jobs- and they ARE lawyers. But they work side by side (or in a few cases, report to…) professionals who are NOT lawyers. A well regarded organization that works on alternative sentencing reform- particularly for juveniles and mothers with young children. Several lawyers work there; several folks with degrees in social work, a few policy experts. None of these people actually represent clients in court (although they work closely with the legal team) and the Executive Director is a psychologist.
My point was not that lawyers can’t get these jobs. My point was that you can ALSO get these types of jobs without 3 years of law school!!!
I think my son wants to be a lawyer because he’s zeroed in on the fact that those people get paid to argue. And this is his singular skill. He is so freaking good at it. I’m frequently exhausted.
with all due respect, your post is an example of survivorship bias; those that have done well enough to make a “good living”, however they define it. But what your post is missing is the thousands of JD’s that left the legal industry. Yes, they may have moved onto something really exciting, but many of those jobs that they moved to are not JD-required or even JD-advantage. In other words folks could be doing that job without having spent 3 years of their lives in LS.
Per the BLS, the US graduates 2x the lawyers that the industry needs. Thus, by definition, half of all recent law school grads will exit the industry. The odds of a successful career – however defined – are just not good. What the T14 provides is greater portability.
That said, I’m not one of those ‘T14-or-busts’ types, but I do believe folks should attend teh highest ranked LS that is affordable, and that means merit money unless teh family can easily pay sticker. (surprising how many can!) So instead of a T6 at sticker, perhaps a T10 with merit money. Or, a state flagship on the cheap IFF that is a place that you’d like to settle down and practice.
I don’t disagree that it’s best to look at all aspects of any given career. But focusing on law school-it’s three years, it’s expensive(even in-state law schools can run $50k/yr), and then there are the costs of bar review, etc etc. Not many other professions are as expensive to enter with such iffy job prospects.
It depends on the field. High end litigation will certainly decline. Small shop litigation and transactional affairs (e.g. non high net worth trusts and estates) are already over saturated with new unemployed attorneys offering rock bottom prices and ample malpractice. Big law corporate will continue to be viable, if someone considers that an acceptable career.
Yes, most business jobs are not fulfilling or high end. To make mid six figures or higher, become a medical specialist, start your own business, or enter finance if possible. The difference between these business jobs and law is that the former requires no grad school, no tuition or debt, and you get three more years of youth to explore. The cost is so much lower.
Crediting this. The odds are steep and the rewards worse than ever in the profession. The ABA has NO plan to bail out the profession or reverse disastrous policies that harm lawyers
I believe there are (for those thinking about careers for young people they know) more than these three areas in which to potentially succeed/thrive, if looking for a career outside the law. Some young people may have interests in completely different areas and there are risks not mentioned (e.g., while some people - usually with $/connections from other sources- can just “start a business”… 90% of start-ups ultimately fail). So there are pros/cons everywhere.
I don’t disagree w/a lot of the issues raised re: law (and other fields). I’m just cautious re: across-the-board, absolutist advice when there are so many different perspectives/experiences and young people with varied talents/interests.
No, one shouldn’t go into the law for the wrong reasons (e.g., not knowing what else to do) - but neither should certain (valid) concerns about the field drive everyone away. It’s more complicated than that - as is the career outlook in many other professions.
P.S. Gatormama - during my career I’ve had to unlearn a love of arguing.
The reason I mention these is because most people attend T13s with the intention of going into big law or in-house. Most alumni of a T13 will spend a good amount of time there. With the public interest work, blossom has mentioned more obtainable and, I’d say, more interesting alternatives given 2021 hiring practices.
“Have interests in completely different areas” this is a good quote of yours because it underscores something not said enough. Law is often recourse for young people who don’t know what they want to do with their lives but have junk liberal arts degree that forces them to be creative if they don’t go to graduate school. These young people have been raised in movies in which the rich people are lawyers or lawyers are arguing in front of the SC or getting people off death row. They don’t show the time spent on lexis nexis or explain firm recruiting or have a plot where clients won’t pay for an estate plan or other work. If only….
<<These young people have been raised in movies in which the rich people are lawyers or lawyers are arguing in front of the SC or getting people off death row. They don’t show the time spent on lexis nexis or explain firm recruiting or have a plot where clients won’t pay for an estate plan or other work. If only….>>
To be fair, there are a ton of careers with the same unrealistic entertainment depiction. I mean, movies about hackers or journalists or cops invariably show a bunch of heart-pounding quick cuts and aha moments, when the reality is hours of mind-numbing drudgery (these are just ones I personally know about - I’m sure it’s the same in every career).
Yes, entertainment does not depict most careers accurately. The issue is that it takes two years of college credits to become a cop in many high paying jurisdictions and journalism is dependent on (1) an elite undergrad brand name and (2) serious connections. These are far smaller costs than three years of advanced graduate education and the average JD holder’s student debt load.
Since you mentioned cops, their pension, pay, job security, and insurance are all gold plated compared to the assistant DAs they work with. Your average west coast/northeastern big city cop will make far far more over a career than the ADA and they don’t even need a BA. There’s also less nonsense in being a LEO midlevel than running over 500 petty cases as an ADA.
I concur with those posters who suggest that your child not go to law school directly after getting an undergraduate degree: first, a little “real world” experience is always a good thing to bring to law school; second, your child might find that what they do after getting a Bachelor’s degree is something they might want to keep doing as a vocation, or might lead to another life path that is satisfying.
Do have the money talk with your child (not just about law school but undergraduate school as well). My suggestion would be to seek admission to your state’s public flagship law school. I graduated from my state’s public flagship law school many years ago, and the top graduates there had no trouble finding work in larger venues instate or out of state; and the price was very reasonable. Or your child may get to law school thinking that he wants to go into one area of law but finds that another area is something that he really enjoys a lot more; that happened with me.
I agree on working after undergrad but for no more than two or three years. Once you hit 29/30 there is acute age discrimination with entry level hiring especially at firms. They want young and fresh attorneys to work to the bone, and they don’t want new hires with children.
The flagship is true in most states, whether Florida or wyoming or Wisconsin or California. It is not true in some states like NY, MA, Maine, or Illinois, where the top public law school can ruin your life and any prospect you once had of practicing law.
Go to law school when one has achieved an LSAT score high enough to gain entry into a top 13 law school at an affordable price, or to a regional law school on a full tuition (or better) scholarship award.
