I don't think you need to describe what you did during law school jobs. That will save a lot of space. I'm 5-10 years out of law school with 6 law school jobs and 3 pre-law school jobs on a one-page resume.
Jeez. Wouldn't at some point the sheer numbers start getting to be too much? I deleted all my pre and during-law school jobs in favor of just all of my post-law school jobs. I also spend a few lines describing what I've been doing at my current job though.
Regarding the whole vet thing--coming from someone who has absolutely no experience with any of that, if I see you're a vet, you're getting the vet boost (if I'm giving one) as it is. If I ask further about what you did, or if it's a conversation that naturally comes up during an interview, then you have the opportunity to explain. I'll note that the OP explains later about having, basically, 12 years' of work experience (8 years WE + 4 years military) and four legal internships. I think during law school, at least some of that is worth noting. Would I put every job? I dunno. It might be just as strong to summarize what you did rather than list out every single employer and position you've ever held. But more a case-by-case basis there.
When a lot of people talk about resumes they talk as if having a one page resume is the goal. It's not. Having the strongest resume possible, that will cause you to stand out in a positive way, is the goal. Having a bunch of extraneous fluff will make your resume weak, but so will taking out helpful stuff just so you can achieve the supposed "goal" of having a one page resume. IMO, even if the material is only mildly helpful/impressive, it could put you over the edge when you are being compared to similar candidates.
I agree wholeheartedly that the goal is to have the strongest resume possible. But I also think the general idea (which I likewise agree with) is that for the vast majority of people in this profession (certain things like academia excluded), a one page resume will often be the strongest. Two pages to discuss representative matters/deals or publications, etc. I really believe few people have backgrounds that are truly exceptions to this general rule--and, at least, definitely fewer than the number of people who think they are exceptions. (Not singling anyone out here, just in general.)
For example, people often talk about having pre-law school WE and years of experience and etc. etc. That's great, and I don't mean to discount pre-law school WE, but how much of the detail
is truly helpful? Unless it's something very
interesting or directly on point with what we're doing at the firm, I personally couldn't care less except in very broad generalities.