<p>I honestly wouldn't know, but a $43k/year job for a law degree plus two years of experience to comment on 300 bills a year, of which at most one or two will ever see the light of day, is the "most coveted job"?</p>
<p>Lawyers must have it really, REALLY bad.</p>
<p>A Colombian drug lord deserves a good lawyer, because the alternative is Guantanamo, which is unacceptable to everyone who isn't holding the guns (and even to some of those who are). And, by the way, the vast majority of criminals understand instinctively that their defense lawyers -- especially public defenders -- are part of the system that's putting them in prison. They're not so wrong about that.</p>
<p>As for "skirting": If you show a client how to achieve the client's goals in compliance with the law, that's a good thing. For the most part, clients and lawyers have to feel pretty certain about legality, and to feel pretty strongly about what they are trying to accomplish, to go through intentionally with something that looks at all questionable. Few people like to take big risks. If it turns out that you've found a "loophole", what that generally means is that neutral judges cannot conclude with confidence that the legislature actually intended to prohibit what you've done or gave fair notice that it was prohibited. And then the legislature fixes it or not, depending on whether it really does want to prohibit the specific conduct. There's nothing horrible or dishonorable about being part of that process.</p>
<p>By the way, for students considering law school: Some of this is sometimes called "thinking like a lawyer" -- black is white, evil is just a particular band on the spectrum of good. If it really disgusts you, find something else to do. Even if you don't think that way yourself, you'll have to put up with a lot of it from colleagues, opposing counsel, judges, etc.</p>
<p>Thanks for the feedback, folks. We have had family members who've gone for the bucks vs what they believed in, and it didn't sit well with S. Works for environmental protection now, can't see him doing it differently. So he'll need to do some real research should he decide to go that route (and, I'm guessing, make himself as desirable as possible for the kind of job he'd want to do.)</p>
<p>ariesathena:</p>
<p>You are sorely mistaken about "legal aid, poverty law, housing law": those tend to be very tough jobs to get, at least in good programs. The poverty law program my wife worked in hired almost exclusively from top-10 law schools, and then only people who had a demonstrated commitment to the work. While she was on the hiring committee, they turned down a Harvard Law Review editor / Supreme Court clerk because she hadn't done enough public interest stuff. Money is very limited, job openings are very limited, so the jobs are very tough to get.</p>
<p>"the vast majority of criminals understand instinctively that their defense lawyers -- especially public defenders -- are part of the system that's putting them in prison."</p>
<p>I'm sure that lawyers for the Cosa Nostra, Colombian drug lords, environmental polluters, or Halliburton can find ways to feel good about themselves. And if they don't, they'll make enough money to assuage their ill feeling. Finding loopholes can be fun! (I do it, as a non-lawyer who writes laws, all the time when trying to patch up legislative proposals.)</p>
<p>But I suspect that there are some lawyers, despite having learned to "think like a lawyer", who might, at least initially, prefer to think about the "quality" of their clients. I'm sure they can be trained out of it, though. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ah yes - but most of the people i knew who were interested in "environmental law" didn't really feel that "compliance" with what the government might allow was the goal they were hoping to work for. :)</p>
<p>Thanks, unbelievablem. Exactly. I'm pretty sure S would not go into this area in order to be the one who says, in effect, "if you go just this far, you won't get arrested." Might as well be in another line of work altogether, at that point.</p>
<br>
<p>business-side environmental lawyers weren't guiding 99% of the world into compliance with the laws.</p>
<br>
<p>Yes. In actual practice, I was very surprised to find how black-and-white environmental law ISN'T.</p>
<p>Most cases aren't Erin Brockovich vs. evil polluter hell bent on poisoning children. Here's a few facts about the first environmental case I worked on.</p>
<ol>
<li>Our client was a utility that was the successor in interest to a Victorian power plant.</li>
<li>The pollution occurred more than 100 years ago when no one had any idea that Victorian power plant technology leaked chemicals into the ground or that that could be dangerous.</li>
<li>For 75 years, no one, including the client, knew there had once been a power plant on site.</li>
<li>The problem was discovered by the client in the 1980's. Our client had already voluntarily cleaned the site up to the satisfaction of the (blue) state EPA before the lawsuit commenced.</li>
<li>The sole issue in the suit was whether meeting the state cleanup standard was enough, or whether, as plaintiffs argued, the site had to be so clean that the pollutant level was zero.</li>
</ol>
<p>Now, I'm not claiming my side was a bunch of heroes, but they weren't Colombian drug lords by a long shot. This was pretty much like any other law suit where both sides had a decent legal argument and a decent fairness argument, and justice is served by everybody having a good lawyer. And that's actually not unusual for enviromental cases. When I was assigned to the case, I was prepared to conscientiously object myself off the project, and I didn't because I honestly thought it was a fair fight.</p>
<p>Now, if you work for the Sierra Club, they're pretty much only going to fight the Erin Brockovich cases, and that's fabulous. That's an altruistic type of practice, and I wouldn't put any corporate paid work in that category. I'm just saying that if you want to do private practice, and you pick your firm wisely, your clients are not all Tony Soprano.</p>
<p>"I'm just saying that if you want to do private practice, and you pick your firm wisely, your clients are not all Tony Soprano."</p>
<p>But it might be more interesting, and lucrative, if they are. ;)</p>
<p>Ok everyone, your posts have all been very informative and eye-opening. Now I am NOT a parent. I am about to apply to college, and while some of may think it is "too early" to "plan out your whole future", I just want some simple questions answered about whether or not law is the right place to for me. So, I can argue well, and have a very systemic way of presenting information (as is evidenced by numerous school presentations, debates, etc. <---- ok, besides what i've mentioned, the point is, i'd like to be a lawyer), but I hear, as all of you have been saying, that the hours are horrible and the work very grueling, on top of the fact that sometimes, some of your social/marital relationships have been sacrificed. Of course this is not true for ALL types of law (or is it?) but here is the MAIN concern: I love business/entrepreneurship-type of law, and would like to work for a prestigious corporate firm, or better yet, work as an in-house lawyer (again, not mainly for the prestige, but more because I like business) ! BUT, I WANT TO HAVE A FAMILY AND A SPOUSE WHO ARE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED BY MY INABILITY TO BE WITH THEM. Obviously, there are other avenues in which to practice, such as govt, small firms, etc. but I like the business side of things. So, here are my questions 1) Many or several years down the road, if i quit law, can I go work at a company/corporation in some executive position, just like that or would I need some kind of specific qualifications ? 2) Would you say that working for the govt gives more benefits/pay than working for a large prestigious firm ? 3) If you work for the govt, say at the Dept. of Energy, or something, then does this type of position include defending criminals, and other people who can't afford legal counsel ? Or is the job of a public defender confined solely to the DA's office ? 4) Do many young people want to work at large, prestigious firms only because they believe that family law/personal injury/worker's comp kind of firms don't offer prestige ? But for you lawyers out there, what would you do ? work at a so-so firm with good pay, benefits and good hours, or work at a high-powered, top-pay, bad hours kind of a firm ? 5) do you think maybe its best for a young woman to work in the high-powered firm for a few years, and then slowly go to a less-pressure firm if she wants to start a family soon ? 6) how are the firms on vacation time ? do the top firms give 2 weeks, or is there a standard time, and do you often find yourselves forced to do your law work while vacationing ? (or perhaps, do you even get vacations?) 7) You can get a law degree, yet not practice law, and then what would you do ? Work for a corporation ? ....... the point is people, I'm freaking out here !!!! Obviously, I'm know I shouldn't rely solely on the advice/posts that you've been listing, but i have to admit, that you all are overwhelmingly correct when it comes to pay, hours, clients and colleagues with attitudes, and stress. Should I just get a law degree for the heck of it (i dont literally mean "for the heck of it", since it's something i'd be willing to do), and not practice law?</p>
<p>dude...chill out, you havent even applied to college</p>
<p>gooduniforme-- the best advise i can give you, given the fact that you have not even applied to college yet, is to RELAX!!!! College is a time for exploring and learning about yourself and your interests -- just because you like to debate doesn't mean that law is the best field for you. </p>
<p>But I will try to briefly address some of your questions -- but PLEASE remember - whatever I or anyone else posts here -- we can't possibly answer everything you want to know --</p>
<p>1) Depends on the company and the background and experience you have -- there is no automatic path from law to business executive -- nor is there any bar or requirement you would have to meet to first do so.</p>
<p>2) You make more money working for a large prestigious firm than for the gov't. Depends on what you mean by "benefits." Can't comment on health insurance or pension plans -- benefits of gov't work are likely to be more intangible.</p>
<p>3) Public defenders/legal aid offices (not the DA's office) defend accused criminals who cannot afford an attorney -- otherwise, working for the gov't has nothing to do with representing the indingent. If you work in the Energy Dept, you deal with matters involving energy -- may or may not include litigation -- litigation is generally a specialty -- you are either a litigator or you aren't. The type of litigation will vary depending on the dept - some may be in administrative hearings, some in court, again depending on your job in the agency. Criminal law is a separate practice area. It really depends on what the job is, as to what you would be doing. Gov't work covers a vary broad range of possible jobs.</p>
<p>4) Read the posts on the Law School forum to get an idea of why people want to work at large firms. Prestige and money are two big reasons. But there are also people who feel that it will provide them with the best background and the greatest opportunities to then go elsewhere -- eg, if your goal is to work in-house for a large corp, sweating it out for several years at a large firm may allow you to get a higher, better in-house job than if you try to go in-house sooner.</p>
<p>5) Each individual has to decide what is best for him/her - sorry, no one can answer what is best for you. I know women who took a less pressure route from the beginnig; I know others who pushed to make partner so they could then take time for family -- there simply is no one answer.</p>
<p>6) Can't answer as to the number of weeks of vacation. But depending on what type of work you are doing and how important the work is -- I have known of people who have gotten phone calls while on vacation. But I've also known many attorneys who've enjyed uninterupted vacations.</p>
<p>7) Search through the law school forum -- there was a thread on this relatively recently (within the last few motnhs I think). Some people will tell you that law school will open many opportunities in general and that it can't hurt even if you never practive law. Others will point out that it is an awfully espensive endeavor to undertake simply for the heck of it. Again - no one can answer this for you.</p>
<p>FINALLY -- REMEMBER none of this is anything you need to be freaking out about now!!!! Now you should be worrying about your college application and which college will be the best fit for you in terms of where you will be happy and able to grow as an individual. You do not even have to go to law school right after college -- in fact many consider it a real benefit to get some additional "life" experience before going to law school. </p>
<p>What you should come away from all of this understanding is that there is a lot to consider with respect to deciding whether to go to law school -- in that regard you are already a step ahead of many in your position -- too many smart kids who like to debate are steered towards law school without them really evaluating whether it is the best route for them. Some of your questions and concerns will become clearly simply as you get older. Some you should continue to explore -- talk to as many lawyers as you can (real live one, not just internet ones :) ). See if you can work in a law firm over a summer -- even if its just clerical work you can get to see what goes on. Keep an open mind, and don't fixate on it right now!!!</p>
<p>I realize I'm just echoing what others have said, but this thread has been so helpful. I'm bright, like to read and write, and hate math, and I guess that equation has always ended with law; this has given me tons of insight. Thanks.</p>
<p>I have two questions, if anyone can answer them:</p>
<p>1) What do you know about "government relations" law? Is that the same thing as being a lobbyist?</p>
<p>2) What kind of qualifications do most law school professors have? Are they just lawyers with JD's who got tired after a while and started teaching? Is there some Ph.D. equivalent for law that they have?</p>
<p>can't comment on gov't relations law.</p>
<p>as for law professors -- there are different paths to becoming a law prof. going to a top law school certainly helps. some practice first, some go directly into academia. at some schools, practicing attorneys are also adjunct profs. some profs consult or practice on the side. </p>
<p>to some extent, whether they practice first may also depend on the field in which they teach -- ie, there are some fields in which practical real world experience can be very helpful, other fields in which it is probably irrelevant. when i was in law school i had profs whose real world experience certainly enhanced what they brought to the classroom -- i also had other professors who i doubt had much exposure to the real world of legal practice -- they each brought something different to the mix.</p>
<p>there are graduate law degrees - masters of law and doctor of law that can be gotten, but i don't think they are required by any means. (Some masters programs are geared toward people who want to teach, some masters programs are for foreign law grads looking to learn about US law. there are also master programs for people specializing in tax law. ie - not all master programs are the same thing)</p>
<p>You can look at the websites of varous law schools and go through their faculty listings you can probably get an idea of the type of background the profs have -- even at top schools you will see faculty that have jd degrees and not grad law degrees. (fyi - the basic three year degree is now called a juris doctorate -JD degtree, but at one time it was called an LLB, bachelor of laws degree, so depending on when the professors graduated, some will be listed as having an LLB rather than a JD.) You can also look at law schools' degree programs for a description of the types of graduate programs that are offered.</p>
<p>"Government relations" is a polite term for lobbying. Not everything government relations lawyers do is "lobbying" within the meaning of various lobbying statutes, but lobbying is part of any government relations practice.</p>
<p>Professors: Unbelievablem got it pretty much right; here are a few grace notes. At elite law schools, practice experience is very little valued, at least pre-teaching practice experience. If you look at Harvard and Yale (and that ilk), most of the professors started teaching right out of law school or right out of a judicial clerkship following law school; at most they will have 3-4 years of experience at a firm, a nonprofit group, a U.S. Attorney's office, or the Justice Department. Overwhelmingly, they come from other elite law schools.</p>
<p>What IS valued, however, increasingly over the past 30 years, is a PhD in another field, especially social science fields. Practice while a law professor is also valued -- one of the ways famous professors get famous is to perform high-profile consulting work, or to take significant government assignments (think Alan Dershowitz, Larry Tribe, Robert Bork, Larry Lessig).</p>
<p>Every law school, including the elites, has experienced practicing lawyers who teach courses as poorly-paid adjuncts, but that's resume-enhancement for the lawyers, not a career path. In a few cases it can be a trial run for a regular appointment, but that's much less common than you might think. Also, every law school has a "clinical" program in which students participate in representing actual clients. The faculty in the clinical programs are always experienced attorneys, usually with less fancy academic credentials. Some schools have a limited tenure track for some clinical faculty, but for the most part they are second-class citizens in their institutions. (NYU may be an exception to that.)</p>
<p>Below the elite level, law schools take different approaches. Some make much more extensive use of adjuncts; some try to attract practicing lawyers; some mimic the elite schools. Most probably try for a blend.</p>
<p>LLB vs. JD: It depends on the school. For the past 40 years or so, LLB = Harvard Law School (that is the basic degree Harvard awards).</p>
<p>Graduate programs: Most graduate programs serve one of two functions: (1) Foreign lawyers getting a U.S. credential (that will let them get admitted to the bar in a U.S. state), or (2) lawyers with a few years of practice getting a marketable credential in a specialized area, like tax (and often from a school with higher prestige than the one they originally attended). At the elite and semi-elite level, graduate legal degrees are probably a negative as a teaching credential; below that they may help some.</p>
<p>Not that it really matters, but just so that no one looking at HLS gets confused, Harvard currently awards JD's, not LLB's. (cant comment on whether Harvard made the switch over later than others; basic point is not to be confused if you see LLB for a prof's credentials instead of a JD.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Our students come from all 50 states and more than 70 countries around the world. Most are pursuing a J.D. (Juris Doctor) degree, while many others are earning an LL.M (Master of Laws) or the S.J.D. (Doctor of Juridical Science).
[/quote]
<a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/about/%5B/url%5D">http://www.law.harvard.edu/about/</a></p>
<p>My bad. Harvard seems to have switched over in the late 60s, Yale in the early 70s. I thought Harvard was still awarding LLBs in the 1980s, but I was wrong. (This is apparently the centennial of the JD degree, which was first awarded at the University of Chicago in 1906. Thank you, Wikipedia.)</p>
<p>My spouse and I are both practicing attorneys. We began our legal careers in large law firms but now we have our own law firm where we share legal duties and have more time to devote to our children. Growing up, our children probably spent as much time at our office as they did at home. We made sure they had a comfortable place to rest, study and play at our office. We rarely asked them to help out but at times we put them to work making copies or running errands. They were occasionally bored at time spent at our office or at the long hours we worked. However, they grew up realizing that lawyers work hard and are dedicated to their clients, often at the expense of their personal lives, and they also learned the value and importance of hard work and helping others.</p>
<p>For what it's worth, we like practicing law in our own firm but we also liked the large law firm practice when we were younger and didn't have children.</p>
<p>Whether or not our children ever practice law, my spouse and I believe that law school is an excellent investment because a top law school teaches its students to think in a logical manner. No matter what careers our children choose, we've always told them that we want them to go to law school, not only for the educational and career benefits but also because a law school degree can lead to many different careers - a definite plus since it's more common today for people to change their career paths during their lives. And, like most parents, we will be proud of our kids in any career they ultimately choose.</p>
<p>My wife and I are both lawyers; I'm still practicing, and she's taking an extended child-rearing hiatus. </p>
<p>We're both happy with our career choices; if one or both of our children wanted to practice law, I wouldn't discourage them.</p>
<p>I was pretty sure I didn't want to practice law by the end of my first semester of law school. (I changed my mind; practicing law is a lot more interesting than law school.) I stayed in law school anyway, largely because the school I attended was such a bargain in those days. </p>
<p>But give how much they're charging for tuition these days, I wouldn't advise anyone who has to incur the massive debt usually required to attend law school to do so unless he/she definitely wants to practice law.</p>
<p>I also know many licensed attorneys who do NOT practice law because they have "burned out" or never really loved law in the 1st place or don't like the rigors of law practice.</p>
<p>I also agree that there are lots of fascinating aspects of law, but at the current expense of law school it is definitely something you need to KNOW you want to do for a good period of time before you commit the money & forgo the income to attend law school.</p>