career advice from practicing attorneys

<p>Cangel, my current work is hard to describe - I've kind of created a niche career for myself that defies categorization, at least not in one word - though everyone I work with understands my role and areas of responsibility. Basically I got involved starting up a business and either took on or kept functions that I was good at, and refused or later passed on tasks that I was not particularly good at. Even though that sounds odd, I don't think it is very unusual in the world of small business. </p>

<p>In fact, I think one of the first barriers I had to overcome both in changing careers and then in getting the acceptance of family members (primarily husband, who soon became ex-husband) was that my new career didn't come with a label. I mean, of course I could get business cards printed up with whatever title we agreed to assign me - it's always been "Director of Something Impressive-Sounding" -- but I couldn't be replaced by one person - you'd have to hire at least 3 to fill my different functions in different capacities. And that's just my main job - I take on independent contract work too. So I guess in a way I come under that all-encompassing title, "consultant".</p>

<p>I do have to say that my job is a LOT more secure this way. The lack of categorization means that I am valued for my individual talents and abilities - not how well I perform a role that thousands of others are trained for. I mean - I could never be the best attorney in the country (that's tough - "very good" was about the best I could hope for) - but it's easy to be the best at being me. </p>

<p>My legal training and experience helped in many ways:</p>

<p>1) Understanding of business planning & contracts: all those years of lawyering means that our new business never entered into any stupid or poorly written contracts that we would later come to regret. Also, it was easy to forestall or avoid business disputes with customers or vendors, since I knew where we stood practically and legally from the outset -- I knew when to cut our losses or change course to avoid potential lawsuits, or to speak up at an office meeting to warn that a practice or policy being considred might run afoul of regulatory laws. So in a sense, practicing law was a good way for me to learn what NOT to do when running a business. </p>

<p>2) Writing ability. This one really is probably the most significant- though I started out with this strength before I ever went to law school. The law practice was just hella good practice over many years in persuasive and analytical writing. The biggest revelation for me was when I went to a career counselor who explained the idea of a functional resume, and explained that legal writing is merely one form of technical writing. </p>

<p>3) Analytical ability -- this overlaps with the writing. I am very, very good at researching anything I want to, integrating the information, restating it, reporting it to others, making decisions based on the information. I'd say that is pretty much what law practice is all about. As a side project I wrote a book last year, in about 3 months, on a topic unrelated to law -- I was hired by a publisher with a project and a short deadline. It was hard work, but I don't think it was as hard as writing a US Supreme Court petition for cert. in a complex case. </p>

<p>4) Interpersonal skills -- probably the most important for the survival of my primary business. We started with several people from very different backgrounds and everyone spent the first few years griping & sniping. I'm the one who usually played mediator and brought everyone together, coming up with rules and procedures for getting things done and running office meetings, anticipating problems and conflicts before they got too far out of hand. Some of this came from negotiating skills that I learned as a lawyer, but I think most of it was a adverse reaction to lawyering -- I was intent on avoiding the conflict, competition and one-up-manship that characterizes the way most lawyers interact. </p>

<p>If law school was still as inexpensive as it was when I attended, I'd recommend it for anyone -- its a great education. I had one classmate whose career goal was in journalism -- as far as I know, he ended up doing what he wanted, with the law degree being a great asset. </p>

<p>The problem is that it is now a very expensive education, especially for someone who does not intend to practice law in the more financially lucrative areas or to use the law degree in a traditional way. The fees have just been raised yet again at the UC schools -- aargh! </p>

<p>Practicing law is a wonderful career as long as you are not necessarily stuck doing it for the rest of your life -- and I know far too many practicing lawyer who definitely do feel "stuck" -- stuck because they do not think that they are qualified for any other work where they could maintain their income and lifestyle, stuck because they are licensed in one state and can't afford the lost income and time necessary to qualify to practice in another state where they would rather live, stuck because somewhere along the line they have gotten burned out or sick of what they are doing and don't know how to change.</p>

<p>I still am a member of the state bar, by the way - on "inactive" status. That means that if I ever want to practice law again, all I have to do is opt to pay full fare for my annual bar dues.</p>

<p>My younger brother is definitely in "guilded cage" of law. He loves the lifestyle that he can afford as a pretty well paid attorney but doesn't like the constant adversarial relationships. Before he went to law school, he had majored in Travel Industry & Management & hated that after a year. I warned him he was jumping out of the frying pan & into the fire--belatedly, he agrees.</p>

<p>I think the skills you learn in law school are useful, but it is increasingly expensive to go to law school & a lot of other specialized training, especially if eventually you decide you hate the profession you trained for. Fortunately, in law, everyone is a generalist & no one specializes until they've gotten their basic ed & hopefully law degree.</p>

<p>I'm not a parent but I thought i'd post...
both of my parents are lawyers and own their own practice. though I don't wish to go into the same type of law as my parents (criminal, family, employment), I would like to go to law school and perhaps become a practicing attorney. This is because, thanks to my parents, I understand the importance of attorneys in today's society.</p>

<p>But in law, you definitely become a specialist and somewhat locked into your speciality after a few years of practice. The law grad can be hired anywhere, but it's pretty hard for someone who has been practicing 5 years with the antitrust litigation section of the law firm to jump over into family law. Areas of practice are very highly specialized, and it takes years to accumulate the knowledge and experience to be able to earn well in a specific area. So I think that lawyers really do often feel boxed in, with the downside being that the longer the person pursues a given area, the more wedded they become to that. That doesn't mean the lawyer can't shift to other areas of practice, it just means that usually that means at least a temporary step back in terms of income, especially when you consider the problem of malpractice liability. </p>

<p>Lawyers do get around that somewhat by associating with others to build up their experience-- the small town divorce lawyer who has a multi-million dollar personal injury case fall into her lap may associate a big name p.i. firm, insisting on working actively with them... and that may be a transition point to go into p.i. work. The situation illustrated in the movie "Erin Brockovich" is real, too -- but that's all kind of serendipitous, hard to plan for.</p>

<p>Another way some folks change focus is working for the state for a while, for example at the Attorney General's Office. While they do take a temporary cut in pay to switch from say antitrust to personal injury, they can get experience without going back to school & without the spectre of malpractice. Associating with a good firm when trying to expand the range of cases works well too. It's not as unusual as you might think to expand or switch focus with a high profile case or a few. My brother had several sexual harrassment/employment discrimination cases & now gets quite a few of them.</p>

<p>Some schools allow non-law students to sit in and/or take classes as well, particularly in specialized areas and/or teach courses that relate to their field/speciality.
Starion</p>

<p>do aspiring lawyers in college tend to double major or at least have a minor?</p>

<p>no reason to.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>They major in whatever will get them the highest GPA. So to answer your question, typically they don't as this would jeopardize their GPA.</p>

<p>Because of this thread, I no longer have an interest in going into law.</p>

<p>does your undergrad major have any correlation with acceptance to law school? do they even care what you major in? (upper tier law schools..like top 10)</p>

<p>This is a great thread. I started out pre law in college but switched to business because the market seemed saturated for lawyers--in 1983. Even back then it seemed like the only profession on the planet for people who wanted to make a lot of money but didn't want to do math. </p>

<p>There are always going to be more non-math people who hope to earn high salaries than there will be genuine need for lawyers, thus the legal profession will continue to be a rate race and a heartbreaker for all but a handful of elite.</p>

<p>For that reason, law is the only profession I actively discourage. Luckily both of my kids are really, really, good at math so I've been all about "look at the cool high paying options open to you BECAUSE YOU ROCK AT MATH" and I hope they won't even notice that they could both be fabulous lawyers.</p>

<p>There is some fantastic information on this board for anyone considering law school and/or a career in law.</p>

<p>I am a practicing corporate lawyer who has done both the big law firm thing and the in house route. I absolutely love practicing law. I love the everyday challenges and I truly enjoy finding creative solutions to my clients problems and learning about different industries and business customs.</p>

<p>That said, I think that there are some tremendous problems in the legal industry that lead to immense dissatisfaction and burn out. First, students choose to attend law school, often straight out of college (often a big mistake, I think), and come out of law school with $100,000 or more in student loan debt. Well, that kind of debt load certainly limits your career options. I think that many graduates are pushed into practice at the big firms simply because it is the only way these students will be able to repay their loans. A government or public interest job (even with a generous loan forgiveness program), with their lower salaries, may not be an option. A graduate in this situation who may have enjoyed and excelled at a career at the public defender's office may leave the practice of law after some time with the big firm. Second, as big law firms have raised salaries over the last 5-10 years, I think attitudes have changed. These law firms seem to think they own their well paid associates in ways that go far beyond any harsh workload that might have been inflicted upon young associates 20 years ago (or so I have repeatedly been told by attorneys who came up through the ranks at that time). Perhaps even worse, clients, who have seen the billable rates for these same young associates go through the roof make increasingly arduous demands (A couple of years ago I heard a client say, "For the amount I'm paying for you to do this work, you should be making my lunch and filing my toenails too." Nice guy.). Any sense of the genteel or "white shoe" law firm has fallen away. In this environment, law hardly qualifies as a "profession" anymore. Finally, as some previous posters have mentioned, corporate America has changed dramatically, which directly affects associates at big law firms (who usually count as many Fortune 500 companies among their clients as possible). Headcounts are down at corporations, but the workload is way up -- particularly in law departments where Sarbanes-Oxley, accounting rule changes and corporate compliance are now the focus of much corporate attention. These conditions affect both associates at big law firms, who have to deal with increasingly stressed out and overly burdened clients, and to in house lawyers, who are often asked to accomplish a tremendous amount with very little staffing and resources. </p>

<p>Of course, despite it all, I really do love being a lawyer. Am I glutton for punishment? Maybe. I think that I used to just shut up and take it when I worked at my big NYC law firm -- what choice did I have? However, the experience that I gained in that law firm is absolutely invaluable, and I wouldn't have the fantastic job that I have today, nor would I have the vast high level experience that enables me to do my job well without having worked at that big law firm for several years. I would do things that same way again if given the choice.</p>

<p>My best advice for those considering law school is to go in with your eyes open. What you see in a law school classroom is not what you will see or experience practicing law. I would encourage prospective law students to take an internship in law or to work as a paralegal for a couple of years before law school. Go and see for yourself.</p>

<p>Off of Sally's post... there is often very little option to graduating with six figures of debt. If you are one of the people who says things about "state schools" or "cutting down your budget," it's just not applicable to law school.</p>

<p>A while back, I did a brief survey of state law schools and figured out how much they would cost for three years. Summary:</p>

<p>UF is the cheapest. With tuition at about $9,000/year for in-staters, a student can get out with about $50,000 debt after paying for housing, books, etc.</p>

<p>From there, prices go up dramatically. UConn and William & Mary are about $30,000/year all told - so you graduate with $90,000 of debt. UVA is $42,000 for in-state people -> $120,000 debt. Michigan isn't cheap - I seem to recall that it's about $30,000/year -> $90k debt.</p>

<p>Those are the state schools. If you're lucky enough to live in a state with a "cheap" (ha, ha) law school, good for you - otherwise, tough luck. </p>

<p>Some private law schools are closing in on $60,000/year. Northwestern just broke that barrier. $180,000 of debt, anyone? Sure, you can trim about $5,000 off that if you live on a bare-bones budget, but that's only 2-3% of your debt.</p>

<p>Unlike undergrad, the quality of your law school is tremendously important. It's not like you can go to East Boise State and have the same job opportunities as a Michigan or a UVA grad - they simply will not (and may never be) available.</p>

<p>So yeah... lot more students trapped into big-firm jobs. I've said this before but it bears repeating: we already have enough lawyers in Brooks Brothers suits. The cost of law school effectively prohibits most law graduates from practicing in the public interest after graduation.</p>

<p>This assumes you can get a public interest law job even if you wanted to.</p>

<p>In my state, there was a job opening last year for an assistant-level lawyer in the Attorney General's office. Job required two years of experience plus law degree. The beginning pay was $43k plus benefits. They had more than 300 applicants for the job, including some from every major east coast law school. (Needless to say, more than 299 of them got turned down.)</p>

<p>Why do you think that was so, Mini? Are public interest law jobs extremely scarce? My S is thinking about law school for environmental law, so that's a little worrisome.</p>

<p>A few grace notes to stuff that others have said:</p>

<p>In law, I think it's right that where you go to law school matters much more than with college. The reputation of the school matters a lot, and below the top two tiers you will pretty much be limited to job opportunities in the area where your school is located. If you are oppressed by all the Ivy League stuff at the college level, wait until you start looking at law schools: There are probably no more than 10-15 law schools that are truly national in their appeal (only three of which are state schools: Michigan, Virginia, Boalt (Berkeley)). They vary a lot in size, too; all the top-10 law schools combined admit maybe 2,500 students a year. In other words, it's as if the entire Ivy League and every university and LAC that might be considered an Ivy equivalent boiled down to Harvard and Columbia.</p>

<p>My wife, and most of her friends, took public interest jobs out of law school. It required a lot of sacrifices (and usually assistance from a spouse -- my big firm job paid my wife's law school debt). One friend of ours with no spouse and no family assets lived with us for three years rent-free until she could save enough to rent her own place.</p>

<p>Switching out of law: My wife did this after about 6 years of poverty law practice (including almost 2 years of maternity leave and one year of part-time). She became a public health official, then has rotated through various state and local government and large and small nonprofit jobs. That was what she always intended to do, and it worked pretty well, although she was mostly miserable during the years she was practising law, especailly at first. She has found her legal training to be really valuable as an analytic tool, and the law school credential was fairly important early in her career before she became well known in her field. She only recently stopped maintaining her bar membership (it's been over 16 years since she has practised law).</p>

<p>Law to i-banking: My impression is that this is less common now than it used to be, because MBA training has become so ubiquitous, and there is also a vogue for math PhDs and other people with specialized technical knowledge. If that's really what you want to do, look at joint-degree programs. But people do make that jump, usually after 4-5 years working for a top-line Wall St. or Silicon Valley firm. Plan on going to a top-10 law school, though.</p>

<p>It's still fairly common for lawyers to go into business, however, either by becoming in-house counsel and getting executive appointments within their company, or by doing real estate development.</p>

<p>Job satisfaction: I am, and have been for most of my career, a middle-market business and tax lawyer. It has its moments of ennui or panic, to be sure, but I like my clients, they seem to value my help, the work is often challenging and intellectually satisfying, I get to work mainly with smart, clean, and polite people, and I have been pretty well paid (although not lavishly, especially since I left a large firm). I get deeply involved in people's lives, often admirable or nice people. That's not so bad. Most of the lawyers I know wish they were doctors, and most of the doctors wish they were lawyers.</p>

<p>I find business law generally more satisfying than litigation -- it's inherently cooperative, less like a high-school football game. But sometimes I miss the win-lose highs of litigation, or the ability to write briefs that carry out an argument over a few pages (as opposed to a few bullet points). Most litigation, of course, winds up as a business deal -- it's like war and diplomacy: you go to war because you don't think diplomacy will work, but eventually you need to get back to diplomacy. Ninety percent of law-school training is litigation-oriented, but only maybe half the lawyers do much litigation.</p>

<p>The private-firm world is generally still mystified about how to accomodate women's childbearing and -rearing needs. It's not that anyone intends to discriminate against women -- they try really, really hard not to -- but women disproportionately tire of the struggle and drop out of that world on all levels. It's not necessarily a tragedy -- many of them go in-house to large corporations that can accomodate part-time and flexible work schedules, with defined hours. As a result, the in-house legal world is becoming increasingly dominated by women, especially if you look below the general-counsel level.</p>

<p>"Why do you think that was so, Mini? Are public interest law jobs extremely scarce? My S is thinking about law school for environmental law, so that's a little worrisome."</p>

<p>This was for a lawyer attached to the Department of Ecology.</p>

<p>There are hundreds and hundreds of well-paying jobs for environmental lawyers - just working for the polluters.</p>

<p>It should be noted that there are ways to write and interpret law without being a lawyer. I have been writing law (working on one just now) and administrative codes for 16 years now, and providing interpretation in the public health realm, without a law degree.</p>

<p>
[quote]
My S is thinking about law school for environmental law, so that's a little worrisome.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>just an fyi for your s to be aware of -- i knew several friends in law school who intended to go into "environmental law" who were very rudely surprised to learn that many of the job openings were with firms that represented the "polluters" -- ie exactly the opposite side that they had hoped to be taking when they intended to enter environmental law. at least back then (over 20years ago) it seemed much harder to find environmental law jobs working for the "good guys."</p>

<p>i don't know how things are now - but your s should be aware that when people talk about "environmental law," they are talking about both sides.</p>

<p>Yeah, really. Environmental law offers lots of jobs, but you don't get to wear a white hat all the time. </p>

<p>Actually, this leads to something worth saying: Private and in-house lawyers perform a very important, and socially valuable, function of helping their clients realize the clients' personal (or corporate) goals operating within the law. Left to their own devices, many of the clients might effectively be pirates and outlaws; but if you show them how they don't HAVE to risk jail, etc., all the time, they are usually happy (or at least willing) to conform to society's norms. So I caution against the notion that only the crusading government lawyers or nonprofit advocates are on the side of good in environmental law. They could never begin to do everything they needed to do if business-side environmental lawyers weren't guiding 99% of the world into compliance with the laws.</p>

<p>Also -- an interesting aspect of "public interest" law is that you often don't really have a client. That frees you from a lot of constraints, but it also gives you a lot of power, which often gets abused (by over-aggressive DAs, by public advocates doing things to enhance their own reputations without meaningful improvements for the public).</p>

<p>"Private and in-house lawyers perform a very important, and socially valuable, function of helping their clients realize the clients' personal (or corporate) goals operating within the law."</p>

<p>That's a very charitable view, and worth noting. The counterpoint, however, is that one of the major roles of lawyers is when it comes to the law, helping one's clients find a way of skirting it. </p>

<p>Whether one is on the side of "good" is determined by the client, not by the lawyer. Now, to be fair, Cosa Nostra lawyers do hold prosecutors' and police' feet to the fire - but only figuratively (I wouldn't speak for their clients. ;))</p>

<p>Hey, even a Colombian drug lord deserves a good lawyer. :)</p>

<p>Off Mini's post...</p>

<p>Finding a job with an AG is much, much harder than finding one in a public defender's office. A lot of people want to do the sexy criminal work but don't want to defend the dregs of society. Some jobs (esp. federal prosecutors) are extraordinarily highly coveted - if you didn't go to a top 10, forget about it.</p>

<p>Public defenders, legal aid, poverty law, housing law - all generally much easier to get. Very much a fallacy to extrapolate from the most coveted of (almost any) job into the least coveted.</p>