<p>ive been reading a lot of online blogs about people who went to law school and wished that they didnt or people who finished law school and have enormous debt(150,000$) and they were advising people not to go to law school ive heard that a lot of people in law school become alcoholic and drug addicts and that family and bfriend/ gfriend relationships get strained, people suffer from hair loss, lack of sleep, etcc. for those of who who went to law school are all these things true and if you had to do it over again what would u have done differently and what advice would you give to those who wish to go to law school</p>
<p>I'm a 2L and haven't suffered any hair loss or addictions (well, I'm a little addicted to watching the Food Network, but I don't think that was one of your concerns)!</p>
<p>Yes, law school is hard, and yes there's pressure to do well enough to get a job that enables you to pay off your loans. From watching friends at different schools, there's actually less pressure at higher-ranked schools, because their graduates find it easier to get jobs and there's often loan forgiveness if you go into less lucrative fields. </p>
<p>Some people deal well with the pressure--finding positive outlets for their stress, using support networks well, etc. And others take more destructive paths and harm their relationships or themselves. Some law students make bad choices, but law school doesn't MAKE you make bad choices. </p>
<p>Part of law school (just like any grad school or career) is figuring out what things you really value and how you're going to fit them in. Some of my classmates have spouses and kids and pets. Some have time-consuming hobbies (a few run marathons, one competes in beauty pageants, etc.) or religious commitments or extensive volunteer work or part-time jobs. Others don't do any of these things and are in class or the library for 14 hours a day. No one group has a monopoly on good grades, law review positions, or where they work after graduation. </p>
<p>If I had to do it again, I'd definitely go to law school. I might have taken some time off rather than going straight from undergrad, but I've made some good friends among my classmates and then I wouldn't have gotten to know them! I'm a little stressed about what I'll do after graduation, but that's only because there are so many different options and things to apply for. For me, it was a great decision. But it's definitely not for everyone.</p>
<p>I don't regret law school at all - I had the time of my life. I had my masters degree and had worked for 3 years and was ready to enjoy school again. I had a group of very tight knit friends and we had a blast. I thought law school was easier than undergrad. I can't say I enjoyed practicing, but I was lured away from what I really wanted to do and went for the "biglaw" money. I only lasted 3 years before I went into business. It was easier way back then - 25 years ago - because I went in state and it was much cheaper. I rented a cottage and rode my bike to class and had a great job on campus for all 3 years. I'm not sure I'd do it now if it meant taking on significant debt. If no debt, what have you got to lose? Just don't let the golden handcuffs get you - financially, try to leave the door ajar to be able to try something else if you hate it.</p>
<p>A quarter century (almost) after graduating from law school, I have no regrets, even if you were to ignore the fact that I met my wife there, and that our children owe their very existence to our decisions to matriculate at the same law school.</p>
<p>I still like practicing law, and can't think of anything else I'd rather be doing if I had taken some other path. Life is good here.</p>
<p>Of my group of friends in law school, I'm the only one who'd do it over again. We are mid-1990s grads.</p>
<p>Well, one major reason people go into law in the first place is because they expect a pretty decent salary later down the road. So I don't think law school debt is a good argument against law school attendance unless you know you are going to be a *<strong><em>ty lawyer with a *</em></strong>ty salary.</p>
<p>Talent or legal ability often has no correlation to income.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Talent or legal ability often has no correlation to income.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Could you please clarify what you mean by this statement?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Talent or legal ability often has no correlation to income.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Right, I guess they assign incomes arbitrarily then.</p>
<p>Talent and ability at doing your job is one of the main determinants of income in most fields. I don't know where your claim came from.</p>
<p>Income has much more to do with where you work, and not necessarily how well you do it. I have read some dreadful writing samples from associates at some of the top law firms in the country. Those associates make anywhere from $160k to well over $200k. I have read some excellent samples from very talented, hard working associates from firms in which they make a third of the big law salary. Being smart doesn't guarantee that one will be a good lawyer. Some excellent lawyers make bad career choices - many did that in the dot com bubble. They went for the golden ring and it came up tin. Some of them never got back on track again - fine lawyers not making a lot of money now.</p>
<p>My point was not meant to suggest that bad lawyers make great money - although some clearly do. The point is that it is not enough to say to yourself that you will be Clarence Darrow, therefore making a ton of money and not have to worry about debt. It's not that simple.</p>
<p>Well it depends on what you define to be a "bad lawyer." There are many different skills involved in law. One of them, for instance, is being able to sell yourself and organize / round up a team for tasks. If you're good at this, chances are you will be more likely to be "promoted" and earn a higher income than someone who isn't. That doesn't mean that the good advertiser who doesn't have as much legal knowledge as some others is a bad lawyer; it means he's good at being a lawyer with regards to this aspect, and his salary benefits from it.</p>
<p>I don't think there's any question that part of what determines financial success is luck, plain and simple. Obviously not all, and probably not even most, but part. Some people walk into the LSAT and end up on the low side of the statistical distribution for no reason, which happens when you have a standard deviation of three points. Some very good applicants get turned down from good-match law schools for no apparent reason, because the process has randomness in it. Some young lawyers won't get hired by a given firm because of the economy, because the interviewing partner was cranky that day, or because a passing-by cab splashed mud on their suit and they made a bad impression.</p>
<p>Does talent rise to the top? Yeah, probably. But luck is certainly involved in the process, at least a little.</p>
<p>tempus, you may not know this, but at many firms all the lawyers hired in the same year get paid the same amount. this is called "lockstep." while at some firms there is also a discretionary bonus, that makes up a small percentage of the total compensation. so a lawyer's skills, so long as they're good enough to not get fired, often have very little to do with how much they're paid. </p>
<p>also, you can be America's best SEC (securities & exchange commission) lawyer or the most brilliant public defender, and you're still not going to be paid as much as a mediocre associate at a big firm. With salaries, a lot depends on the type of organization you work for and what part of the country you work in, much more than your skills.</p>
<p>There are two ways to be successful in this world: be an amazing salesman or be amazing at your job. The former will make more money than the latter. However I choose to be the latter.</p>
<p>Ideally you'd like to be both, but most people won't.</p>
<p>Lockstep compensation for most only lasts for so long, though. Most attorneys who start out in BIGLAW with lockstep comp either move on to greener pastures or stick around and make partner (at least for the very few of them make partner). Most partners and most opportunities out among the greener pastures do tie compensation to some combination of your experience, your expertise, your work ethic and your ability to either generate revenue or successfully protect revenue. </p>
<p>I agree with cartera that the amount of money you make is not a proxy for how good a lawyer you are. However, in most cases, good lawyers, who are determined to be good by their peers and their clients, will have more opportunities to choose their career paths, which could invite choices between high paying and lower paying jobs.</p>
<p>
tempus, you may not know this, but at many firms all the lawyers hired in the same year get paid the same amount. this is called "lockstep." while at some firms there is also a discretionary bonus, that makes up a small percentage of the total compensation. so a lawyer's skills, so long as they're good enough to not get fired, often have very little to do with how much they're paid.
</p>
<p>I know about lockstep. However, at least from my experience (one source being a biglaw partner in my nuclear family), after lockstep (typically temporary), other factors prevail, one being skills. For example, assuming you are being billed by the amount of work you do (via work diary) and the number of clients you bring in, salary can be highly variable.</p>
<p>
also, you can be America's best SEC (securities & exchange commission) lawyer or the most brilliant public defender, and you're still not going to be paid as much as a mediocre associate at a big firm. With salaries, a lot depends on the type of organization you work for and what part of the country you work in, much more than your skills.
</p>
<p>The bolded part above is definitely true. However, ceterus paribus, skills still factor in to some degree, moreso in some countries and/or organizations than others. This we should be able to agree on.</p>
<p>But ceterus paribus isn't a true assumption.</p>
<p>True, but in any case I have seen much empirical evidence suggesting that skills factor in, thanks to my first-hand source, who receives salary statements each year listing the salaries of all of the members within the firm and their job positions. There is a definite correlation between salary and application of relevant skill in the job.</p>
<p>Tempus, skills factor in, but they are not the whole story. Working in a hot (busy) practice area (like bankruptcy right now, rather than M&A) and having the ability to socialize, schmooze, impress and thus, win big clients also play roles. It is definitely not enough to simply be a good lawyer, though that is typically (though definitely not always) a factor in one's financial success in the long term.</p>