<p>If so, how bad is it? Specifics?</p>
<p>TYVM</p>
<p>(ETA: I've seen some say it's as "bad" as early 30's - around 33 - that firms may think you're too old.)</p>
<p>Pretty darn bad, in my experience. I see it less with second-career law school students (who are usually 40 and under) and more with folks in their 40s and later looking for new positions. Legal employers make a lot of assumptions and are generally unwilling to think outside the box when it comes to the sort of candidate they expect to hire.</p>
<p>
Hanna nailed it. As I’ve pointed out before, I’ve gotten creamed in interviews for my engineering work - interviews to be a patent lawyer. Functionally, there is a tremendous amount of “people like me” hiring, in which interviewers want people who are like them, act like them, think like them, and make the same choices they made and would make in the same circumstances. (I suppose that in an overcrowded profession, they can do that and still find quality candidates.)</p>
<p>This could just be me, but I’ve seen a huge difference in malleability of twenty-somethings and people in their thirties, i.e. the younger people are more willing to put up with abuse, and less likely to understand how to challenge a boss while still delivering exceptional service to the client. </p>
<p>While the job market is still soft for entry-level lawyers, the lateral market is stronger - for attorneys will approximately five years of experience. Some jobs ask for 8-10 years. But that hardly bodes well for attorneys with thirty years of experience and a desire to work until they are seventy.</p>
<p>I agree with Hanna and AA. Law firms want young associates who can be counted on to work their you-know-whats off in the hope of making partner (a more and more faint hope) but lack efficiency while older attorneys who have learned to be efficient are not looked on as contributing much to per-partner profits (which is the current driving force behind law firm planning strategy). And companies looking for in-house counsel seem to want younger attorneys who they feel can relate better to the younger employees at those companies.</p>
<p>It’s in many jobs. Even at store, if you are looking for an entry level positions, where the bulk of the employees are in a certain age range, there is going to be a reluctance to hire the outlier. My brothers have told me that they don’t like to hire older employees in certain entry level positions because it has not worked out for them in ways they don’t like in the past. </p>
<p>An older person has to bring something extra to the table in nearly any job, has been my observation. If it is not specific expertise, in the job, it has to be something else. Otherwise, they are going ot be behind the 8 ball. I don’t know what the age range is in terms of it being a problem in law firms I know a number of moms who took off time and got back on track and were hired at firms, gray hair and all, but they were very, very good. My neighbor did not get a partnership, and di find a second chance at another firm and was able to get the brass ring there and he was in his early 40s before that happened.</p>
<p>I’m in my mid-20’s and was thinking of possibly applying in a few more years ( at 29-ish) due to the recession and dampened hiring trends these past few years. But, of course, that’s assuming the legal market would be stable and have improved by then. …</p>
<p>It’s a little disappointing to hear. I guess I would have figured that a more mature person in their 30’s would be a potential asset. I would say that the willingness to work hard (even long hours) would still very likely be there (if not greater) for me. …You guys also realize that 30 is the new 20…40 is the new 30…50 is the new 40 nowadays don’t you. ;)</p>
<p>Also, very ironic that firms would actually want an “inefficient” worker! Still hoping to get more opinions. But thanks so far.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed. With the exception of working for AARP or as a Walmart Greeter, I would submit age discrimination is rampant in EVERY business.</p>
<p>I just hired an attorney for an in-house position who is in his early fifties. We were looking for someone who could hit the ground running; I think his age worked to his advantage. </p>
<p>I started working for the same company just before my 50th birthday.</p>
<p>Age discrimination is certainly rampant, but I don’t know that it’s more rampant in law than in other fields.</p>
<p>The good news is that clients seem to prefer older lawyers. I remember a certain amount of age discrimination by clients early in my career who were open about looking for someone a little less green.</p>
<p>I have been a CS professional thus far. I am in my early 40s and looking to move to patent Law. I am planning on taking the LSAT this year. On reading this thread I am wondering if I should put myself through 3-4 yrs of college to face age discrimination when I am ready to look for work again.</p>
<p>If you, at your age, are going to have to incur significant debt or give up a good job, I would read some of the law school is a scam blogs before doing so. The only way I would suggest going to law school at your age is if you keep your day job and go to night school. Night school can be a blast and the students there are generally older and better than the day students, for what its worth. Don’t plan on getting a job when you graduate though.</p>
<p>If you go part time that essentially means Georgetown, since that’s the only school good enough to go to that has a part time program I’m aware of. With a good LSAT and a substantial scholarship that is not necessarily a bad move. You should be aware that if you graduate in your mid 40s you will be taking orders from people in their late 20s and early 30s. You should critically examine if that is something with which you would genuinely be comfortable.</p>
<p>Yes. Even at the top of law school classes older students have a hard time getting work in firms. Work experience/life experience is good…I was 30 at graduation and was fine…but probably right at the edge of employable in a firm. They want years of your life, when you have no family/kids and can work 60 plus without blinking. They don’t want anyone old enough to consider “work/life” balance.</p>
<p>I was considering IP Law as a career move assuming IP prosecution may face lesser age discrimination. Also my tech background may carry some value. Off course I can look at part-time options and scholarship options but the bigger question is does this career move provide me : </p>
<ol>
<li>a boost in my earning potential say 5-7 yrs down the line. </li>
<li>longevity to my career.</li>
</ol>
<p>In other words at the cost of sacrificing salary now do I earn potential to make more and longer say until my 60s - 70s.
Sounds by your responses neither of my criterion may be met.</p>
<p>However I doubt this has to do with family/kids alone. If it did wouldn’t 30 yr olds be less employable than 50 yr olds. At 50 your kids are on their way out you probably have all the time in the world. At 30 you are just beginning to have kids and a family that is going to be demanding time for the next 15-20 yrs.</p>
<p>A solid CS background would absolutely carry weight with IP firms. As to whether it could boost your earning potential, that’s kind of hard to say. We don’t know how much you make now, we don’t know what you’re forgoing to go to law school, we don’t know where you got in, we don’t know how much it will cost, and we don’t know which markets you’re targeting. There’s just nowhere near enough information to advise you on this.</p>
<p>As to career longevity, I’m not entirely clear why there would be a difference. Presumably you can last as long as you can sell your services, whether it be law or computer programming or underwater basketweaving. I would point out that you should only do law school if you want to practice law, and you’re likely to be unhappy if you get into it only for the money.</p>
<p>Thanks Demosthenes49 for the response. Yes certainly the underlying assumption is that I like both CS and Law :-).</p>
<p>So lets put the money part aside for a moment.
I am thinking about this career choice w.r.t staying in engineering (not management) vs being a lawyer. Its tough to find jobs in tech as a 60 yr old engineer. More experience does not make you proportionally more desirable in fact it makes you less desirable beyond a point.
My thought process was experience in Law probably counts and makes you more desirable. Clients would actually prefer experienced lawyers hence companies would be eager to hire them ? So even if I put in less hrs I bring in more/hr ? So I am more desirable and employable at say 60 as a lawyer than I would be as an engineer ?</p>
<p>I have no personal experience since I just did my legal job search earlier this year in my mid 20s. However, I can point to a few things that seemed to be true. IP is in demand and firms were willing to reach more deeply into the class for those with EE/CS backgrounds. Those with solid work experience tended to fair better than those without, all else being equal. Employers were concerned that older employees would have difficulty taking orders from those younger than them. I would do some more targeted research into law school, and probably check TopLawSchools forums for similar threads. I know they’ve handled this issue several times and they probably have better data than I do.</p>
<p>Clients are willing to pay for experience, but they pay for experience in law, not for something else. If you’re a 1st year associate with 50 years of CS background, you’re going to get billed out (and paid) as a 1st year, taking orders from the midlevels like any other 1st year. What experience will do is open doors to firms that specialize in whatever sort of IP corresponds with whatever sort of engineering you did. After that, you’re just a 1st year, expected to clock billable hours.</p>
<p>Yes I agree I will be billed as 1 yr exp and all previous experience does not count. But each year I work I am adding value to my career and becoming more desirable as a lawyer while I cannot say that at this point for my engineering career.
My question is at what point as a lawyer do I stop adding value (after how many yrs of experience) and is it a law of diminishing returns beyond that point. Is there such point beyond which experience is detrimental to my career as a lawyer.
I can see how age can be detrimental but lets set that aside for a moment.</p>
<p>A lawyer starts to become competent in about year three. Fully competent (assuming proper exposure) by year 5-7. By year ten to twelve you have probably maxed out.</p>
<p>Thanks TempeMom, ok so lets say on an average people complete their JD in their mid-late 20s, by 10 -12 yrs they are in their mid-late 30s. At this point they are probably getting the best billing rates etc. This is the plateau in their career. Is it downhill from here or does it pretty much stay even. i.e. is a lawyer with 20 yrs of experience less desirable than that with 10 yrs of experience. If so why ?</p>
<p>Law firms (as per my limited understanding) mandate some minimum number of billable hrs from their Attorneys. Also I do not see why a client would pay less for a lawyer with 20 yrs of experience. Hence I am finding it tough to understand the reasons for discrimination. </p>
<p>Thanks again for the insights.</p>
<p>If we are talking about your ability to command billing rates, then you never really max out per se. You certainly slow down after a decade or so, but that’s because the limit is attracting clients instead of doing good work. If you are talking about improving your skills, I’m sure people plateau at different places. I don’t know that “lawyer” as a category has some specific point. </p>
<p>The reason for age discrimination is what I said: employers are concerned that old employees won’t want to take orders from younger employees. You are gauged according to your years as a lawyer. No one cares about years spent in some other career. That means a 28yo with 4 years of lawyer trumps a 58yo with 1 year of lawyer and 20 years of CS. There’s no age discrimination against older attorneys if they’ve spent that time being attorneys.</p>