BLS on lawyers

A forum for applicants and admitted students to ask law students and graduates about law school and the practice of law.
User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby RedBirds2011 » Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:00 pm

And to DWI: "no one is using lawyer for this anymore." Now that is absurd. They may not be coming to YOUR firm, but I have never met somebody charged with this in my life that did not seek legal counsel immediately. People are scared after this and thy want advice and guidance. And yes, at least in Louisiana, the consequences are more dire if you do all of it without a lawyer. I have seen it happen.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby RedBirds2011 » Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:04 pm

And to your comment about how to compete with older lawyers spending all that money on ads. Where do you think thEy came from? Do you honestly believe they graduated from law school and were like "well gots my jd so now I'm going to go spend 50,000 on ads and watch profits!" Again, this is not how people build a business. And a lot do fail because they do not get how to build up that client base and referral network at the start. It certainly is a tall order. No denying that.

User avatar
spleenworship
Posts: 4421
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:08 pm

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby spleenworship » Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:27 pm

RedBirds2011 wrote:And to your comment about how to compete with older lawyers spending all that money on ads. Where do you think thEy came from? Do you honestly believe they graduated from law school and were like "well gots my jd so now I'm going to go spend 50,000 on ads and watch profits!" Again, this is not how people build a business. And a lot do fail because they do not get how to build up that client base and referral network at the start. It certainly is a tall order. No denying that.


In support of redbird. When all my friends need a lawyer for divorce/custody/DUI/real estate the first thing they do, every time, is ask their friends for a referral. Only if that doesn't work do they start searching the net.

sadsituationJD
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby sadsituationJD » Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:39 pm

And to your comment about how to compete with older lawyers spending all that money on ads. Where do you think thEy came from? Do you honestly believe they graduated from law school and were like "well gots my jd so now I'm going to go spend 50,000 on ads and watch profits!" Again, this is not how people build a business. And a lot do fail because they do not get how to build up that client base and referral network at the start. It certainly is a tall order. No denying that.


Two things: those lawyers weren't carry 50, 75, or 100+ K of student loan debt. They also weren't "competing" with free forms on Google and legalzoom, etc. The supply/demand metrics of the industry were also exponentially better.

Referrals are indeed great, but you have to consider that with the supply/demand metrics being so severe, saturation is a huge problem. Nearly everyone nowadays has a lawyer in their family or peer group, it isn't the "rare" degree it was many years ago. Making it worse is that these metrics grow grimmer and grimmer every year, with so many scores of JD's unemployed and hanging shingles, and older boomer aged lawyers who NEVER fucking retire.

Also understand that the "shitlaw" cases are important to these 'everyday' people, and most of them are going to greatly prefer an experienced, older attorney over a newbie JD. The problem today is that most "routine" things are becoming more and more complex & time consuming, while at the same time the $$$ you can charge is decreasing due to oversaturation. For example, let's say 2 years out of law school a good friend's mom is seriously injured in a car accident. Is she going to bring that case to you, or to a lawyer who has 40 years of experience and multiple large jury verdicts under his belt?

Take the DWI example: if you charge 2500 for a basic 1st offense, you need a dozen a year to make 30 K. From that 30 K you need to pay gas to get to court, student loans, your own health insurance (should you choose to carry it), office rent, malpractice insurance (if you choose to carry it), photocopy fees, bar dues, CLE fees, etc.

And getting to the point where you get 12 a year is very, very difficult. I'm speaking from personal experience here. Besides advertising/google ads etc, in NJ lawyers are permitted to purchase lists of recent DWI arrest addresses from a DMV database and direct-mail them solicitations. My friend who used me got- you ready for this- 47 of these junk-mail ads in the 3 weeks following his arrest. He used me because, as his friend, I only charged him $500, which was $500 more than he could afford to pay. Understand that many DWI people are drinking & driving because of depression due to joblessness and other economic factors, and scores of others are just plain dirt poor.

What I'm trying to get across is how exponentially more difficult building/growing a solo shop is in current times/conditions. I think there's a general idea here that this is some easy way to score big $$$ if you miss the Biglaw boat, a sort of "back-up' plan. In reality, most solos will barely make what most would consider a decent part-time or "side job" income, not a lucrative career.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby RedBirds2011 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:51 pm

sadsituationJD wrote:
And to your comment about how to compete with older lawyers spending all that money on ads. Where do you think thEy came from? Do you honestly believe they graduated from law school and were like "well gots my jd so now I'm going to go spend 50,000 on ads and watch profits!" Again, this is not how people build a business. And a lot do fail because they do not get how to build up that client base and referral network at the start. It certainly is a tall order. No denying that.


Two things: those lawyers weren't carry 50, 75, or 100+ K of student loan debt. They also weren't "competing" with free forms on Google and legalzoom, etc. The supply/demand metrics of the industry were also exponentially better.

Referrals are indeed great, but you have to consider that with the supply/demand metrics being so severe, saturation is a huge problem. Nearly everyone nowadays has a lawyer in their family or peer group, it isn't the "rare" degree it was many years ago. Making it worse is that these metrics grow grimmer and grimmer every year, with so many scores of JD's unemployed and hanging shingles, and older boomer aged lawyers who NEVER fucking retire.

Also understand that the "shitlaw" cases are important to these 'everyday' people, and most of them are going to greatly prefer an experienced, older attorney over a newbie JD. The problem today is that most "routine" things are becoming more and more complex & time consuming, while at the same time the $$$ you can charge is decreasing due to oversaturation. For example, let's say 2 years out of law school a good friend's mom is seriously injured in a car accident. Is she going to bring that case to you, or to a lawyer who has 40 years of experience and multiple large jury verdicts under his belt?

Take the DWI example: if you charge 2500 for a basic 1st offense, you need a dozen a year to make 30 K. From that 30 K you need to pay gas to get to court, student loans, your own health insurance (should you choose to carry it), office rent, malpractice insurance (if you choose to carry it), photocopy fees, bar dues, CLE fees, etc.

And getting to the point where you get 12 a year is very, very difficult. I'm speaking from personal experience here. Besides advertising/google ads etc, in NJ lawyers are permitted to purchase lists of recent DWI arrest addresses from a DMV database and direct-mail them solicitations. My friend who used me got- you ready for this- 47 of these junk-mail ads in the 3 weeks following his arrest. He used me because, as his friend, I only charged him $500, which was $500 more than he could afford to pay. Understand that many DWI people are drinking & driving because of depression due to joblessness and other economic factors, and scores of others are just plain dirt poor.

What I'm trying to get across is how exponentially more difficult building/growing a solo shop is in current times/conditions. I think there's a general idea here that this is some easy way to score big $$$ if you miss the Biglaw boat, a sort of "back-up' plan. In reality, most solos will barely make what most would consider a decent part-time or "side job" income, not a lucrative career.



I do not disagree with the debt aspect at all. Pretty much all I get from this is, I would never ever ever want to live in fucking new jersey lol! I had a DUI while I was in college and know many many others who have had it as well. I never got any email from any attorney nor did any of these people i know. I have also workd with attorneys in this area as you have and it's not nearly as bad as you describe it. Therefore, I conclude, New Jersey sucks lol

I think you have valid issues and points here, but honestly people have been complaining and predicting the demise of numerous professions for decades. And they are almost always wrong. Success in life is hard. Nothing new here. It gets reall old listening to all these people whine how much harder they have it then their parents. The next generation will be whining the same about how much easier we had it.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby RedBirds2011 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:26 pm

I want to make a comment on sites such legalzoom as well. There are a lot of articles on this issue. Legal zoom can actually increase business for litigation.

There are so many people who have done things such as a will, etc and fucked up so badly by using these "cheap" alternatives. They ultimately end up spending loads more on litigation. Just do some research on legal zoom reviews. There are a lot of pissed off people who wished they would have used an attorney. Legal zoom may cause pressure, but is not going to replace the need for attorneys unless it's a very very simple will ,etc.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby rayiner » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:43 pm

RedBirds2011 wrote:Success in life is hard. Nothing new here. It gets reall old listening to all these people whine how much harder they have it then their parents. The next generation will be whining the same about how much easier we had it.


I'm sorry, you can't avoid factual data with hand-waving platitudes.

The state of the legal profession has change dramatically over the last several decades: http://www.americanbar.org/publications ... ander.html

"Given an overall pattern of contraction, the continued growth of the big firms means that the pain felt elsewhere in the law business is all the more severe. For example, the average income of a solo practitioner in the United States in 2004 was less than $46,000—about a 30 percent decline, in real dollars, compared to the previous generation."

Think about that. For a C/O 1982 graduate, three years of out-of-state tuition at Michigan totaled about $13,500 dollars. In-state tuition was $6,000. The Federal minimum wage over that period was about $3.35. I.e. you could pay your tuition with 1,800 or 4,000 hours of minimum wage work over three years, or roughly 12 or 25 hours a week. In 2010 dollars, the total cost of attending Michigan as an out of state student was $29,000.

Meanwhile, tuition for a C/O 2009 Michigan grad was $123,000 over three years for out of state. Over that period the Federal minimum wage averaged about $6.50. In other words, you could pay your tuition with about 19,000 hours of minimum wage work. That's 121 hours of work per week over three years.

At the end of all that schooling, the C/O 1982 grad, if he came out of law school and became a solo practitioner, averaged about $65,000* in today's dollars, having spent $30,000 at most on law school tuition. The C/O 2009 grad, following the same path, will average $46,000 having spent $123,000 on tuition.

*) I.e. 30% more than today's $46,000 figure.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby RedBirds2011 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:46 pm

rayiner wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:Success in life is hard. Nothing new here. It gets reall old listening to all these people whine how much harder they have it then their parents. The next generation will be whining the same about how much easier we had it.


I'm sorry, you can't avoid factual data with hand-waving platitudes.

The state of the legal profession has change dramatically over the last several decades: http://www.americanbar.org/publications ... ander.html

"Given an overall pattern of contraction, the continued growth of the big firms means that the pain felt elsewhere in the law business is all the more severe. For example, the average income of a solo practitioner in the United States in 2004 was less than $46,000—about a 30 percent decline, in real dollars, compared to the previous generation."

Think about that. For a C/O 1982 graduate, three years of out-of-state tuition at Michigan totaled about $13,500 dollars. In-state tuition was $6,000. The Federal minimum wage over that period was about $3.35. I.e. you could pay your tuition with 1,800 or 4,000 hours of minimum wage work over three years, or roughly 12 or 25 hours a week. In 2010 dollars, the total cost of attending Michigan as an out of state student was $29,000.

Meanwhile, tuition for a C/O 2009 Michigan grad was $123,000 over three years for out of state. Over that period the Federal minimum wage averaged about $6.50. In other words, you could pay your tuition with about 19,000 hours of minimum wage work. That's 121 hours of work per week over three years.

At the end of all that schooling, the C/O 1982 grad, if he came out of law school and became a solo practitioner, averaged about $65,000* in today's dollars, having spent $30,000 at most on law school tuition. The C/O 2009 grad, following the same path, will average $46,000 having spent $123,000 on tuition.

*) I.e. 30% more than today's $46,000 figure.







Waaaahhh :cry: :cry: :cry:

Drop out of law school then

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby rayiner » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:55 pm

RedBirds2011 wrote:
rayiner wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:Success in life is hard. Nothing new here. It gets reall old listening to all these people whine how much harder they have it then their parents. The next generation will be whining the same about how much easier we had it.


I'm sorry, you can't avoid factual data with hand-waving platitudes.

The state of the legal profession has change dramatically over the last several decades: http://www.americanbar.org/publications ... ander.html

"Given an overall pattern of contraction, the continued growth of the big firms means that the pain felt elsewhere in the law business is all the more severe. For example, the average income of a solo practitioner in the United States in 2004 was less than $46,000—about a 30 percent decline, in real dollars, compared to the previous generation."

Think about that. For a C/O 1982 graduate, three years of out-of-state tuition at Michigan totaled about $13,500 dollars. In-state tuition was $6,000. The Federal minimum wage over that period was about $3.35. I.e. you could pay your tuition with 1,800 or 4,000 hours of minimum wage work over three years, or roughly 12 or 25 hours a week. In 2010 dollars, the total cost of attending Michigan as an out of state student was $29,000.

Meanwhile, tuition for a C/O 2009 Michigan grad was $123,000 over three years for out of state. Over that period the Federal minimum wage averaged about $6.50. In other words, you could pay your tuition with about 19,000 hours of minimum wage work. That's 121 hours of work per week over three years.

At the end of all that schooling, the C/O 1982 grad, if he came out of law school and became a solo practitioner, averaged about $65,000* in today's dollars, having spent $30,000 at most on law school tuition. The C/O 2009 grad, following the same path, will average $46,000 having spent $123,000 on tuition.

*) I.e. 30% more than today's $46,000 figure.







*mumble* bootstraps *mumble* *mumble*

User avatar
Tom Joad
Posts: 4542
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby Tom Joad » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:00 pm

RedBirds2011 wrote:
rayiner wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:Success in life is hard. Nothing new here. It gets reall old listening to all these people whine how much harder they have it then their parents. The next generation will be whining the same about how much easier we had it.


I'm sorry, you can't avoid factual data with hand-waving platitudes.

The state of the legal profession has change dramatically over the last several decades: http://www.americanbar.org/publications ... ander.html

"Given an overall pattern of contraction, the continued growth of the big firms means that the pain felt elsewhere in the law business is all the more severe. For example, the average income of a solo practitioner in the United States in 2004 was less than $46,000—about a 30 percent decline, in real dollars, compared to the previous generation."

Think about that. For a C/O 1982 graduate, three years of out-of-state tuition at Michigan totaled about $13,500 dollars. In-state tuition was $6,000. The Federal minimum wage over that period was about $3.35. I.e. you could pay your tuition with 1,800 or 4,000 hours of minimum wage work over three years, or roughly 12 or 25 hours a week. In 2010 dollars, the total cost of attending Michigan as an out of state student was $29,000.

Meanwhile, tuition for a C/O 2009 Michigan grad was $123,000 over three years for out of state. Over that period the Federal minimum wage averaged about $6.50. In other words, you could pay your tuition with about 19,000 hours of minimum wage work. That's 121 hours of work per week over three years.

At the end of all that schooling, the C/O 1982 grad, if he came out of law school and became a solo practitioner, averaged about $65,000* in today's dollars, having spent $30,000 at most on law school tuition. The C/O 2009 grad, following the same path, will average $46,000 having spent $123,000 on tuition.

*) I.e. 30% more than today's $46,000 figure.







Waaaahhh :cry: :cry: :cry:

Drop out of law school then

It's not a joke. A system that leaves a large percentage of some of the best young minds in the country jobless and so in debt they have to move overseas isn't good for the health of the country.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby RedBirds2011 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:03 pm

Tom Joad wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:
rayiner wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:Success in life is hard. Nothing new here. It gets reall old listening to all these people whine how much harder they have it then their parents. The next generation will be whining the same about how much easier we had it.


I'm sorry, you can't avoid factual data with hand-waving platitudes.

The state of the legal profession has change dramatically over the last several decades: http://www.americanbar.org/publications ... ander.html

"Given an overall pattern of contraction, the continued growth of the big firms means that the pain felt elsewhere in the law business is all the more severe. For example, the average income of a solo practitioner in the United States in 2004 was less than $46,000—about a 30 percent decline, in real dollars, compared to the previous generation."

Think about that. For a C/O 1982 graduate, three years of out-of-state tuition at Michigan totaled about $13,500 dollars. In-state tuition was $6,000. The Federal minimum wage over that period was about $3.35. I.e. you could pay your tuition with 1,800 or 4,000 hours of minimum wage work over three years, or roughly 12 or 25 hours a week. In 2010 dollars, the total cost of attending Michigan as an out of state student was $29,000.

Meanwhile, tuition for a C/O 2009 Michigan grad was $123,000 over three years for out of state. Over that period the Federal minimum wage averaged about $6.50. In other words, you could pay your tuition with about 19,000 hours of minimum wage work. That's 121 hours of work per week over three years.

At the end of all that schooling, the C/O 1982 grad, if he came out of law school and became a solo practitioner, averaged about $65,000* in today's dollars, having spent $30,000 at most on law school tuition. The C/O 2009 grad, following the same path, will average $46,000 having spent $123,000 on tuition.

*) I.e. 30% more than today's $46,000 figure.







Waaaahhh :cry: :cry: :cry:

Drop out of law school then

It's not a joke. A system that leaves a large percentage of some of the best young minds in the country jobless and so in debt they have to move overseas isn't good for the health of the country.


Nobody forces anybody to go to law school. It's your choice. Do I think schools should be more forthcoming on employment data? Yes. Otherwise, most of the other whining is just that. Whining.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby RedBirds2011 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:04 pm

There is nothing that makes my skin crawl more than a whiner. I would never hire one.

sadsituationJD
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby sadsituationJD » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:05 pm

There are a lot of pissed off people who wished they would have used an attorney. Legal zoom may cause pressure, but is not going to replace the need for attorneys unless it's a very very simple will ,etc.


There's a major problem with your logic: you're making the leap that "need' equals "need AND ability to pay a private attorney," which as you'll soon find are two very, very different things.

Do you think these folks were using Legalzoom in the first place because they're wealthy and just decided to "scrimp" a bit on the disposition of their Fortune 500 company, Picasso art collection, and villas in East Hampton, NY and the French Riveria?

Or could it be that they have very little property to begin with, save $400 or so by using Legalzoom rather than an attorney, and then the heirs are stuck with the botched results? Do you think those heirs are going to pay you $250 an hour to litigate a 25 K estate, of which each of them stand to get say 8 K?

Again, I speak from experience. I've had clients come to me with all sorts of goofy docs they've pasted together from Legalzoom, We the People, and even notaries who decided to "dabble' in practicing law w/out a license. Not a single one of them have paid our VERY reasonable retainer/rates to fix or litigate this rubbish. Ever.

Another thing is the "judgement-proofness" of so many defendants. I have a construction litigation case I'm working on right now for a homeowner who paid 15 K to a contractor who installed a roof completely wrong, causing 38 K of leaks, ruined insulation, and mold damage. The contractor has insurance, but the carrier does not cover either "workmanship" or mold damage, and roofer himself (per an asset search) went thru Ch 7 bankruptcy 1.5 yrs ago and the extent of his titled property is a 1989 F-150 pickup truck and a bank account with $1800 bucks sitting in it. I could easily file a complaint and get an award of the replacement cost PLUS treble damages under the NJ Consumer Fraud Act, but what's the point when the judgement is nothing but toilet paper?

I have been negotiating with the insurance, and got them to cough up 7500 towards the repair (which will cost 18 K), but that's the end of the road. For these hours of headaches and haggling, the client is balking at paying us $500 bucks. Understand that the fact that the roofer has shit insurance and no money of his own, and had a "F" rating with the BBB prior to being hired is, of course, all the attorney's fault. The client is livid and just keeps screaming on the phone how "this just isn't fair" and "what kind of country is this" and other angry, childish outbursts. Just another day in the trenches of gutter shitlaw.

These types of "nightmare" cases are pretty much the norm for most solos and small firms. There just isn't a lot of "good" business out there for new firms, and dealing with consumers/regular folks is basically a complete nightmare. Nearly every colleague I know (including myself) is desperate to get out of law altogether, as it has the 'trifecta' of terrible pay, enormous stress, and zero job satisfaction.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby RedBirds2011 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:13 pm

To sadsituation, I honestly don't think we are in huge disagreement on a lot of what your saying just the direness of it. And by the way, I'm speaking from experience as well so it's all anecdotal evidence. Just because you hate it and this is your experience does not mean its everyone's experience. And some of this is a result of the economic downturn. And don't tell me about the "new normal" you know how many fucking times people have said this in multiple professions every single damn time there is an economic downturn. Things will pick up, but again this does not mean I'm not knowledgable of some of the structural issues that remain.

sadsituationJD
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby sadsituationJD » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:27 pm

To sadsituation, I honestly don't think we are in huge disagreement on a lot of what your saying just the direness of it. And by the way, I'm speaking from experience as well so it's all anecdotal evidence. Just because you hate it and this is your experience does not mean its everyone's experience. And some of this is a result of the economic downturn. And don't tell me about the "new normal" you know how many fucking times people have said this in multiple professions every single damn time there is an economic downturn. Things will pick up, but again this does not mean I'm not knowledgable of some of the structural issues that remain.



I'm sorry to tell you this, but no, things won't 'pick up.' They will in fact get exponentially worse. We're not witnessing merely a "cyclical" downturn in both the law and the economy at large. What we're seeing now, and going to see more of in the future, is the slow unraveling of an empire, which is what the USA became post WWII (or, one could argue, post WWI).

The USA has massive structural unemployment, a poisoned, corrupt political system that holds 'auctions' rather than elections, a morally & ehtically bankrupt crew of overlord bankster "boyz" like Jon Corzine & Llyod Blankfien who loot/plunder/steal at will with no criminal reprecussions, debasement of our currency, and now the knockout blow of escalating fuel prices in a country without any public transit to speak of and no alterntive energy plans whatsoever. The entire country is, for perhaps the first time in its history, about to see living standards and comforts of life plunge to levels that are truly unfathomable. I highly recommend you read Dmitry Orlov, James Howard Kunstler, Peter Schiff, Max Keiser, Gerald Celente, Bill Bonner, and a host of other "doomer' writers. These men are spot on, and to think that the future is going to be anything like the past is truly "magical thinking." 2023 is going to resemble 1933 much more than 1993.

This isn't the right forum for this, and I'll get off my soapbox now, but anyone basing their expected/future success/earnings in the law off of BLS averages and random samplings of family-friend or relative boomer age lawyers is in for one hard, cold awakening.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby RedBirds2011 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:30 pm

sadsituationJD wrote:
To sadsituation, I honestly don't think we are in huge disagreement on a lot of what your saying just the direness of it. And by the way, I'm speaking from experience as well so it's all anecdotal evidence. Just because you hate it and this is your experience does not mean its everyone's experience. And some of this is a result of the economic downturn. And don't tell me about the "new normal" you know how many fucking times people have said this in multiple professions every single damn time there is an economic downturn. Things will pick up, but again this does not mean I'm not knowledgable of some of the structural issues that remain.



I'm sorry to tell you this, but no, things won't 'pick up.' They will in fact get exponentially worse. We're not witnessing merely a "cyclical" downturn in both the law and the economy at large. What we're seeing now, and going to see more of in the future, is the slow unraveling of an empire, which is what the USA became post WWII (or, one could argue, post WWI).

The USA has massive structural unemployment, a poisoned, corrupt political system that holds 'auctions' rather than elections, a morally & ehtically bankrupt crew of overlord bankster "boyz" like Jon Corzine & Llyod Blankfien who loot/plunder/steal at will with no criminal reprecussions, debasement of our currency, and now the knockout blow of escalating fuel prices in a country without any public transit to speak of and no alterntive energy plans whatsoever. The entire country is, for perhaps the first time in its history, about to see living standards and comforts of life plunge to levels that are truly unfathomable. I highly recommend you read Dmitry Orlov, James Howard Kunstler, Peter Schiff, Max Keiser, Gerald Celente, Bill Bonner, and a host of other "dommer' writers. These men are spot on, and to think that the future is going to be anything like the past is truly "magical thinking." 2023 is going to resemble 1933 much more than 1993.

This isn't the right forum for this, and I'll get off my soapbox now, but anyone basing their expected/future success/earnings in the law off of BLS averages and random samplings of family-friend or relative boomer age lawyers is in for one hard, cold awakening.


Buddy, there is no way you can predict the future. Not even economists can. I have heard these exact things for YEARS. Complaining about how everything is horrible and is only going to get worse is just your cynicism. I have cynicism about it too sometimes, but you are no economist. And they are often wrong as well.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby RedBirds2011 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:31 pm

That's the thing, NOBODY should be going into any field looking at a BLS average.

User avatar
Tom Joad
Posts: 4542
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby Tom Joad » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:34 pm

RedBirds2011 wrote:Nobody forces anybody to go to law school. It's your choice. Do I think schools should be more forthcoming on employment data? Yes. Otherwise, most of the other whining is just that. Whining.

I am not whining. I am saying people are making these terrible choices to go to law school and dragging down the rest of the country with them because of guaranteed government backed loans. There are ways to fix these problems, but it seems Congress doesn't care right now.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby RedBirds2011 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:47 pm

Tom Joad wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:Nobody forces anybody to go to law school. It's your choice. Do I think schools should be more forthcoming on employment data? Yes. Otherwise, most of the other whining is just that. Whining.

I am not whining. I am saying people are making these terrible choices to go to law school and dragging down the rest of the country with them because of guaranteed government backed loans. There are ways to fix these problems, but it seems Congress doesn't care right now.


On this, I agree with you.

People should not be writing a blank check to go to law school. Me personally, I'm a huge fan of taking out small loans, going to class in the evening, and working through school. Most of the best lawyers I know took evening classes while having kids and working full time. When I speak with these people is why I get so bent of shape with these very immature kids who have never worked outside school that whine about why they are entitled to a job after taking out 200,000 dollars in debt and how it's the schools fault, etc etc etc. Not saying this is you. But the whole issue is getting VERY VERY old.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby RedBirds2011 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:14 pm

I'll end this thread with this. I saw a link today from someone on TLS, but I'm on my phone so can't really link to it.

Go to TED and watch Larry Smith: why you will fail to have a great career. It's a pretty good talk I thought. I'm a big fan of TED talks and would recommend a lot of them.

User avatar
Gail
Posts: 977
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:11 am

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby Gail » Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:05 pm

Tom Joad wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:Nobody forces anybody to go to law school. It's your choice. Do I think schools should be more forthcoming on employment data? Yes. Otherwise, most of the other whining is just that. Whining.

I am not whining. I am saying people are making these terrible choices to go to law school and dragging down the rest of the country with them because of guaranteed government backed loans. There are ways to fix these problems, but it seems Congress doesn't care right now.


I like most of your posts, Tom Joad. No one doubts that the student loan industry is an issue.


But come on. Student loans aren't even third place for the biggest problems in the US.

User avatar
Tom Joad
Posts: 4542
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby Tom Joad » Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:11 pm

Gail wrote:
Tom Joad wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:Nobody forces anybody to go to law school. It's your choice. Do I think schools should be more forthcoming on employment data? Yes. Otherwise, most of the other whining is just that. Whining.

I am not whining. I am saying people are making these terrible choices to go to law school and dragging down the rest of the country with them because of guaranteed government backed loans. There are ways to fix these problems, but it seems Congress doesn't care right now.


I like most of your posts, Tom Joad. No one doubts that the student loan industry is an issue.


But come on. Student loans aren't even third place for the biggest problems in the US.

I was talking about education as a whole. I think it is one area in which we could really improve and it is one issue that we are actually in total control of.

User avatar
spleenworship
Posts: 4421
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:08 pm

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby spleenworship » Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:25 pm

Tom Joad wrote:
Gail wrote:
Tom Joad wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:Nobody forces anybody to go to law school. It's your choice. Do I think schools should be more forthcoming on employment data? Yes. Otherwise, most of the other whining is just that. Whining.

I am not whining. I am saying people are making these terrible choices to go to law school and dragging down the rest of the country with them because of guaranteed government backed loans. There are ways to fix these problems, but it seems Congress doesn't care right now.


I like most of your posts, Tom Joad. No one doubts that the student loan industry is an issue.


But come on. Student loans aren't even third place for the biggest problems in the US.

I was talking about education as a whole. I think it is one area in which we could really improve and it is one issue that we are actually in total control of.


IMO Student loan debt is the next bubble, and the next recession in 10 years will be made much much Worse because a shit ton of people will default. This one is already worse than it ha to be because everyone is carrying the equivalent of a mortgage around they can't spend on things like cars, play stations, or a house.

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby prezidentv8 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:48 pm

I want to look away from this thread but can't. For my second straight post: SUMMON MTAL!

User avatar
Gail
Posts: 977
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:11 am

Re: BLS on lawyers

Postby Gail » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:23 am

sadsituationJD wrote:
To sadsituation, I honestly don't think we are in huge disagreement on a lot of what your saying just the direness of it. And by the way, I'm speaking from experience as well so it's all anecdotal evidence. Just because you hate it and this is your experience does not mean its everyone's experience. And some of this is a result of the economic downturn. And don't tell me about the "new normal" you know how many fucking times people have said this in multiple professions every single damn time there is an economic downturn. Things will pick up, but again this does not mean I'm not knowledgable of some of the structural issues that remain.



I'm sorry to tell you this, but no, things won't 'pick up.' They will in fact get exponentially worse. We're not witnessing merely a "cyclical" downturn in both the law and the economy at large. What we're seeing now, and going to see more of in the future, is the slow unraveling of an empire, which is what the USA became post WWII (or, one could argue, post WWI).

The USA has massive structural unemployment, a poisoned, corrupt political system that holds 'auctions' rather than elections, a morally & ehtically bankrupt crew of overlord bankster "boyz" like Jon Corzine & Llyod Blankfien who loot/plunder/steal at will with no criminal reprecussions, debasement of our currency, and now the knockout blow of escalating fuel prices in a country without any public transit to speak of and no alterntive energy plans whatsoever. The entire country is, for perhaps the first time in its history, about to see living standards and comforts of life plunge to levels that are truly unfathomable. I highly recommend you read Dmitry Orlov, James Howard Kunstler, Peter Schiff, Max Keiser, Gerald Celente, Bill Bonner, and a host of other "doomer' writers. These men are spot on, and to think that the future is going to be anything like the past is truly "magical thinking." 2023 is going to resemble 1933 much more than 1993.

This isn't the right forum for this, and I'll get off my soapbox now, but anyone basing their expected/future success/earnings in the law off of BLS averages and random samplings of family-friend or relative boomer age lawyers is in for one hard, cold awakening.


tl;dr

Image




Return to “Ask a Law Student / Graduate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cavalier1138, Google Adsense [Bot] and 8 guests