Law school: yes or no?

<p>Following my undergraduate studies, I want to work part time while working on a Master of Sciences in Accounting. Two years after my MSA degree, I will go to law school and earn a dual MBA/JD degree. I don’t want to be a litigator.I want to know as much as I can on International Trade and International Law. I would like to be a consultant for foreign governments that want to attract businesses in their countries or foreign corporation that want to establish businesses abroad. </p>

<p>I love law and I think that my best bet would be a dual JD/MBA , that way I will have more flexibility with my future.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>There are even fewer jobs in midlaw/small law and/or ****law or in government or PI.</p>

<p>International law=you’ll either be figuring out how to circumvent the laws of multiple nations at a time (instead of one at a time), or figuring out where the nation of origin is for a product, or be doing international aviation stuff for airlines.</p>

<p>I am interested in Trade Law and International Law because of the career that I want.Learning how to get around laws from several and different nations won’t be much of a headache as long as I know which countries I want to represent. I am already in that boat, I have been dealing with laws from different countries. My personal and educational background have provided me with the basic stuffs. </p>

<p>I believe that my dual MBA/JD+age+maturity+work experience will do the rest</p>

<p>I haven’t read every post, but as a current biglaw associate, I’d say you really have to love it because you do work so hard and give up so much for it. I have always said that you should NOT go to law school just because you can’t decide what else to do. I work with MANY associates who are really smart, got great grades and had the LSAT scores to get into top 10 schools so they went because they didn’t know what else to do with their degrees, wanted a good salary etc. They have landed the coveted biglaw jobs (before the economy went south) and are miserable. Many of them are unhappy because they don’t have an inherent/underlying interest in business. You don’t have to be a business person to do well in biglaw but most cases handled by biglaw firms in large cities are commercial – business deals or disputes/litigation regarding business deals, so if you have no interest, it can make it very mundane. It’s hard to work such long hours, always be reachable to the partners etc. when you don’t have any interest in the underlying work; certainly you can do it for the money for a while, but the burn out rate is high for those who are uninterested (and sometimes even for those who want to do it but realize that working 24-7 is exhausting). While I cannot imagine doing anything else, I always encourage people to really think about whether there is anything else they’d rather be doing than being a lawyer before they jump into law school.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree with you, along with the others on the thread who are making similar comments.</p>

<p>I originally chose IT because at the time - the dot.com bubble of the late 1990’s - it was the place to be financially. In late high school and community college, I started to explore different subjects. It seemed that my strongest interests were outside the STEM fields and that I didn’t have a genuine passion for computing. But I majored in Computer Science anyway. To make a long story short, I believed that the financial benefits offered by IT at the time, among other factors, meant that IT was my most realistic shot at a desirable lifestyle. In retrospect, this reasoning was deeply flawed.</p>

<p>It was amazing how quickly the IT industry collapsed early in 2000. I still remember how the papers went from talking about how the industry was going full speed ahead to how the industry was completely dead in the space of literally two months. A decade later, the industry still hasn’t truly recovered. In that time, there were about three years, from roughly 2005 until 2007, when the job market was passable. The remaining seven years or so had job markets ranging from garden-variety bad to utterly abysmal.</p>

<p>Thus, my first point is that any field can become more or less lucrative very quickly. Moreover, a field can go down for the count and not get back up. If you go into a field partly or wholly for the money, your reason for being in the field can thus be mooted very quickly. By contrast, a field you have a passion for isn’t likely to change so radically that you no longer enjoy it, at least not in the short term.</p>

<p>Also, not having a passion for IT made it harder to succeed in the field once the dot.com boom collapsed. After spending 40-50 hours per week working with computers, I felt the need to balance out my life with creative, cultural and social interests. Meanwhile, many of my competitors for work were willing to live and breathe computing and to spend much of their free time working with new technologies. Care to take a guess as to which of us was more desirable to the few remaining jobs and contracts?</p>

<p>Thus, my second point is that if you choose a field for which you don’t have a passion, it’s likely that you won’t be very successful regardless of how lucrative the field is.</p>

<p>@futurenyustudent: Given your career goals, I actually agree with your “T20 or Bust” approach.</p>

<p>If your career goals usually require you to have graduated from at least a certain level of school, it follows that you probably need to graduate from that level of school to achieve those career goals. Hoping that a lower-quality school will help you achieve those goals is risky at best. And other posters seem to concur that you usually need a T20 law degree to be hired by BIGLAW. So if you really do want BIGLAW, you genuinely need to get into the T20 school or choose an alternative career path.</p>

<p>One general scenario that doesn’t occur to most people: It may be the case that the better jobs in career “A” are more desirable than career “B”, but that the lower-quality jobs in career “A” are actually less desirable to you than career “B”. Suppose you need a certain degree to break into career “A”, with the better jobs in that field usually going to people who attended the top universities in that field. But career “B” is attainable to you with little to no additional coursework. In this case, you’re actually better off not going to a lower-tier school to break into career “A”. This is because this will only get you the lower-quality jobs in career “A”, which aren’t even as desirable as career choice “B”. The more time and money required to attend the lower-tier school, the more true this is.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s a very big “if”. You might not realize until you actually get out into the real world that you don’t enjoy living in the area in question. After all, school is usually a bubble, and you’re not fully interacting with the area and its local culture until you’re done with school. It might not be until later in life that you travel to another area and realize you’d rather live there. You might be interested in an opportunity which is located in an area where a degree from your school doesn’t carry much weight. You might want a serious relationship with someone with ties to another area who would rather live there. There are many reasons why it’s very limiting to assume that you’re going to live out your life in one place.</p>

<p>Take3- Many, many people know where they want to live. Many students go to their in-state universities and in-state professional schools and have no intention of living elsewhere. This is very true in Texas- and Tennessee. I am amazed at how many of my high school classmates are still living not far from our suburban Philadelphia home town.
I did not follow this path, and have lived in places I would have never predicted. My degree traveled nicely.
Many law students are married and have a spouse working in a particular area. If you are living and working in Kansas City and your extended family is there, it isn’t a huge stretch to decide you are happy staying there. Yes, down the road when you decide you would rather live in San Francisco, you might find that your degree isn’t as recognized, but by then you have some good professional experience.</p>

<p>MOWC, would the “regional” strategy differ at all for students who know where they want to live (regionally) but this area is NOT in-state? (I ask the question in third-person, but of course it’s personally applicable. One of my career goals is to move permanently to Canada, which is easier than it sounds because I’m a Canadian citizen.)</p>

<p>If you want to move permanently to Canada, you should get a Canadian JD.</p>

<p>However, know that you’re locking yourself into Canada (pretty much).</p>

<p>Re the regional strategy – I only recommend it if the person is absolutely certain where they want to live and that certainty comes from something solid like having grown up in that area/state or having a working spouse there. I’ve seen too many people go with a solid regional school in a region they think they would like to settle in without any actual ties when they go in. Often people make this decision bc those regional schools will offer good merit money compared to the top 14. However, as they become 2/3Ls, they realize that while NC, FL, Texas etc. is nice, they’re not quite as ready as their classmates to settle down, buy a house there after graduation etc. and would rather try out the NYC/DC etc. biglaw scene for a while until they’re ready to settle down somewhere. For those people, it can be more of a challenge – those at the top of their classes still do ok, but others who are at the middle of the pack can’t even get a second look from many firms that are taking people with the same credentials from t14.</p>

<p>I have a dream of being a criminal lawyer. I realize it doesn’t pay as well as Big Law and I realize it is nothing like Law and Order. That’s still my dream. How can I make this dream a reality while not drowning myself in debt (especially since the paycheck will not be as nice).</p>

<p>I know many successful attorneys who went to non-prestigious law schools and are making a great living, so I disagree with posts like “Top 20 or Bust.”</p>

<p>Law school is a rough road if your student plans to take loans out - I amassed 100K between undergrad (Wesleyan) and law school (St. John’s). But it’s great training.</p>

<p>Your idea about shadowing a lawyer at his or her job is spot on - your student may emerge from that experience hating what the lawyer does all day. But if he/she loves her experiences as a paralegal, even better. And frequently paralegals find employment at their firms after they’re admitted.</p>

<p>Too often, kids enroll in law school and other graduate programs by default - they don’t know what else to do and can’t get a job. You’re right to consider some kind of internship before committing the funds and hours to law school - it ain’t for everybody.</p>

<ul>
<li>Andy Lockwood</li>
</ul>

<p>

</p>

<p>I would agree with this sentence if two words were added to it, as follows: “Many, many people think they know where they want to live.”</p>

<p>And if their intentions change, they may have some difficulty actualizing their intentions.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>As a corollary, the job in San Francisco might be off the table until you have some good professional experience.</p>

<p>@Keilexandra, @futurenyustudent: There are some commonalities between the legal systems of the USA and Canada. With the partial exceptions of Louisiana and Quebec, both are common law systems. Still, there are huge differences, and you probably have to study the legal system of the country you’d like to practice in. If that’s Canada, you’d go to a Canadian university to learn the Canadian legal system. Also, unlike the USA, you don’t have to complete a Bachelor’s degree to begin law school in Canada.</p>

<p>Take3-I think you do. UToronto for instance requires a BA by enrollment. I think McGill lets you transfer without completing a BA, but in the UK and Australia law is an undergrad degree.</p>

<p>I find it curious that of all the people here who have posted advice, futurenyustudent hasn’t posted his credentials. That’s probably because he hasn’t even taken the LSAT yet, so his advice is probably not as informed as the attorneys or law students here.</p>

<p>Here’s my perspective, as a T5 law student summering at a Vault 5 firm (this is copied-and-pasted from another thread):</p>

<p>There are students at most top law schools, even at Harvard and Stanford (though i do not know about Yale), who do not have jobs (or, correspondingly, don’t have anything lined up for 2L summer). The statistics have actually been quite generous, however. I have on good word that roughly 70% of our class (Columbia/NYU) received a job offer from the summer through the on-campus interview program. Considering the economy, that isn’t bad at all. However, unless one has non-big-law plans coming into law school (and is firm in their convictions), it would suck terribly if they ended up in that 30% that didn’t get an offer.</p>

<p>And there’s no assurance that things will necessarily pick up by the time you come around to interview. There’s a great deal of uncertainty regarding the economy; though things are picking up (and, firm-wise, work is definitely picking up), the Eurozone debt crisis has created significant uncertainty with respect to how things will be impacted here; further, when our local municipalities and cities start having debt crises of their own, we could be in for great deal of hurt. On top of that, there’s significant regulatory uncertainty with respect to curbing speculative derivative use and pursuing civil (or criminal cases) against those who had shady derivatives practices. In essence, if the actions against Goldman prove successful, there is a veritable mountain of shareholder suits that could be launched against them (and some have already started). Moreover, there are 18 other banks the SEC could put in their crosshairs next (and they all, from what I know, engaged in similarly shady derivatives practices); correspondingly, there’s a veritable Mt. Everest of shareholder claims that could be launched by shareholders of those banks.</p>

<h2>So yes, significant uncertainty, though that last stuff about banks and regulations and lawsuits might provide a lot of bread and butter to NYC and Chicago attorneys, and may well sustain the notion of a “bulge bracket” law firm for at least a few more years (though, frankly, I think their days are numbered… at least their days of being aggressively expansionary–I think there’s a definite power-shift toward top litigation practices (Quinn, Kirkland, W&C, Boies, Paul Weiss), though I’m sure some of the professionals here could shed more credible light on my view (and tell me whether I’m completely wrong)).</h2>

<p>That should shed some light on the state of the job market. The days of 100-student summer classes are over, and the leverage of bulge-bracket big firms and other large firms will soon be a thing of the past as lower market liquidity and available credit leads to fewer deals and litigation can be outsourced more and more at the junior levels. As a result, even students at top 10 schools will have to be at least in the top half of the class to score a big law job, though im sure a student at Harvard, Stanford, or Yale can make it from the bottom-half.</p>

<p>Flowerhead: </p>

<p>I think you make some good points. I’ve heard the same thing from our outside counsel in the secondary markets. Law firm internships are signficantly reduced this summer. The jobs that are available are also more about work than wining and dining future associates, with social budgets reduced or cut entirely. And many firms are warning that their interns may not receive job offers.</p>

<p>I would add that young attorneys need to be very cautious about accepting employment for that mountain of financial services litigation, whether on the plaintiffs’ or defendants’ side. This experience has the potential to limit their future marketability. </p>

<p>Specifically, I am recalling the 10+ years of asbestos litigation. When the asbestos litigation was winding up, I received numerous resumes from young lawyers who had spent their first few years working on an asbestos case. The asbestos litigation was also very high profile at the time, but ultimately one case is…one case. The experience didn’t compare with attorneys who had handled more diverse work coming out of law school. When you’re desperate for that first job to help pay your student loans, you don’t always realize that the first job has the potential to define the rest of your career.</p>

<p>Perhaps, though I think experience from litigation related to securities fraud is much more marketable than toxic tort stuff.</p>

<p>What I’m seeing as an in-house counsel who has LOTS of contacts with outside firms AND other in-house counsel is a big move to strong regional firms and “hiring the lawyer, not the firm.” Companies in this economy (actually, a lot of this started before the economic collapse) don’t want to pay the rates for the NYC firms if they don’t have to do so. We will pick an Alston lawyer in Atlanta, Bradley Arant Boult in the mid-south etc. We really shop for the right lawyer and the right rates. General Counsel no longer feel the need to go with the “big name” firm. There are plenty of good lawyers out there for a lot less money. Therefore, aspiring to a top regional firm instead of the big NYC financial firms can be a nice career path. You still need to be high in your class or a little lower at a top tier firm, but these firms are hiring from Vandy, Emory, UGA, Alabama, etc. They HAVE cut back the hiring, though.</p>

<p>@futurenyustudent: Whether or not Canadian law schools require a Bachelor’s degree apparently depends on the institution. For example, the Queen’s University Faculty of Law requires three years of undergraduate study for admission but does not require a Bachelor’s degree. See [Faculty</a> of Law - First Year Admission Standards](<a href=“http://law.queensu.ca/prospectiveStudents/admissionInformation/firstYearAdmissionStandards.html]Faculty”>http://law.queensu.ca/prospectiveStudents/admissionInformation/firstYearAdmissionStandards.html)</p>

<p>Neonzeus & Flowerhead
If you are able to “bring in” the meso & asbestos…or securities fraud “investment loss” cases…you don’t even need to do the work. Just sit back and collect your fee.</p>