How much time does the average lawyer spend in big law? Forum

[rayiner]

You're comparing an incredibly great scenario (making $90k after six years at a job with just a bachelors degree) to the average below/average scenario (coming off big law after 3 years making $80k).

And this is being extremely generous. More like "bomb-ass pop lock and drop it" scenario. $90K after 6 years of work with a bachelor's degree? LOL you probably have better odds graduating below mean from a top 200 law school at landing a 100K firm job.

Not really. It really depends what your degree was in, where you live, etc. My degree in business from a good school, I know plenty of people who hit the 100k mark before 6 years. In fact very few people from this school do an mba because it is not necessarily financially ie. you should be earning more than what the mba would start you at.
Plenty of accountants, sales people, finance, consultants, marketing are breaking or surpassing this 6 years out. With an average/median starting salary in the low 50k range you'd seriously being doing something wrong not to double your salary 6 years out.

The valid point you may be pushing is that this is not common in most of north america, I don't know to be honest what all those other majors end up financially like gender studies for example. But anyone who got into these types of jobs would be just as good off financially and if you can make big law, you can definitively get into most these jobs.

So I was in software engineering before law school, and it's a profession where you can hit $100k six years out. That said, I think you're painting a rosy picture.

1) $100k after six years is not typical for people in accounting or marketing or even engineering. You can do it, but you have to be very good. If you're going to a Big-4 accounting firm or into a decent consulting gig it's possible, but the former is quite an achievement for an accountant. I have accountant friends who make nowhere near $100k. It's not the typical outcome.

2) People who get big law could not necessarily get into finance or consulting (the two where $100k after six years is the best possibility). The majority of law students are political science/humanities majors, not finance or business majors.

4) Finance and consulting are both up-or-out professions, at least the ones that let you earn $100k within six years. There are a lot of former finance/consulting folks in my law school class who did their 2-3 years then went to grad school like all of their coworkers.

5) The professions that let you earn $100k after six years that aren't up-or-out (engineering, marketing) have a low salary cap. As an engineer I would've hit $100k quite quickly by job hopping, but after that you're making 3% cost of living increases for the rest of your life.

Even out of the pool of good jobs you can get out of undergrad (consulting, finance, engineering, accounting), the folks that will surpass $100k early on and continue building earning power beyond the low $100k range are probably in the top 20% of outcomes (that's SWAG). And if you're in the top 20% of outcomes after getting big law, you'll be making much more than that after leaving big law.

[Geon]

You're comparing an incredibly great scenario (making $90k after six years at a job with just a bachelors degree) to the average below/average scenario (coming off big law after 3 years making $80k).

And this is being extremely generous. More like "bomb-ass pop lock and drop it" scenario. $90K after 6 years of work with a bachelor's degree? LOL you probably have better odds graduating below mean from a top 200 law school at landing a 100K firm job.

Not really. It really depends what your degree was in, where you live, etc. My degree in business from a good school, I know plenty of people who hit the 100k mark before 6 years. In fact very few people from this school do an mba because it is not necessarily financially ie. you should be earning more than what the mba would start you at.
Plenty of accountants, sales people, finance, consultants, marketing are breaking or surpassing this 6 years out. With an average/median starting salary in the low 50k range you'd seriously being doing something wrong not to double your salary 6 years out.

The valid point you may be pushing is that this is not common in most of north america, I don't know to be honest what all those other majors end up financially like gender studies for example. But anyone who got into these types of jobs would be just as good off financially and if you can make big law, you can definitively get into most these jobs.

So I was in software engineering before law school, and it's a profession where you can hit $100k six years out. That said, I think you're painting a rosy picture.

1) $100k after six years is not typical for people in accounting or marketing or even engineering. You can do it, but you have to be very good. If you're going to a Big-4 accounting firm or into a decent consulting gig it's possible, but the former is quite an achievement for an accountant. I have accountant friends who make nowhere near $100k. It's not the typical outcome.

2) People who get big law could not necessarily get into finance or consulting (the two where $100k after six years is the best possibility). The majority of law students are political science/humanities majors, not finance or business majors.

4) Finance and consulting are both up-or-out professions, at least the ones that let you earn $100k within six years. There are a lot of former finance/consulting folks in my law school class who did their 2-3 years then went to grad school like all of their coworkers.

5) The professions that let you earn $100k after six years that aren't up-or-out (engineering, marketing) have a low salary cap. As an engineer I would've hit $100k quite quickly by job hopping, but after that you're making 3% cost of living increases for the rest of your life.

Even out of the pool of good jobs you can get out of undergrad (consulting, finance, engineering, accounting), the folks that will surpass $100k early on and continue building earning power beyond the low $100k range are probably in the top 20% of outcomes (that's SWAG). And if you're in the top 20% of outcomes after getting big law, you'll be making much more than that after leaving big law.

1. 40% of my graduating class went into accounting, most will become CAs =chartered accountants
"In Ontario, 62 per cent of CAs earn more than $100,000 a year. The average salary for a CA with five years experience is $113,140. And the average CA earns more than $168,000"
http://www.thestar.com/business/money91 ... nting-boom
Therefore, one would be a below average CA to earn less than the average of 113k 6 years out. Given that my school has most above average workers, you can see how I come to that conclusion. Likewise, I don't think brainwise, my colleagues have any intellectual edge over their legal counter parts who score 160 or more.

The average student won't get close to a big four firm in Ontario, but if they do, 120-160k is what I've heard they are earning 5-6 years out.

2. Its subjective, I can't prove it, but if your good in writing and math, not even excellent just good enough then you can make it. I have no doubt that any engineer or reasonably competent person could do my job.

3. True. Which is part of the reason I am trying to get out because this time next year I will be out of a job and my boss has already told me that I am not being promoted to the junior partner track (which is effectively being fired but allowed to finish your contract)

4. Given the large amount of my class who enters accounting and the steadily rising wages with experience I think 10 years out they earn some ridiculous number like 156k or 200k+.

I do agree that big law seems to haul in more than big accounting even on the high end. A partner a top law firms even in Canada can make from 700k - 1 million vs 500k for accountants.

[Geon]

With an average/median starting salary in the low 50k range you'd seriously being doing something wrong not to double your salary 6 years out.

Starting at 50K just isn't normal, nor is doubling your salary in six years.

The real problem is that taxes make it VERY difficult to catch up up because come 2013, the federal rate is 39.6% = 40% for ease of calculation and anyone in big law or most will end up in high tax NYC, or California or Chicago where they can expect to pay another 10% in state and local taxes. so you end up paying a near 50% tax rate and even if your making the 7th year associate 300k (With bonus), you're only taking home 150k.

You really think this is how income tax rates work?

-Then what is normal, what kind of job are you pursuing that pays less than 40-55k?
-Yes this is how I believe it works, if your making 300k your more or less paying half or near half your income in taxes if you live in nyc or cali. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Tiago Splitter]

-Then what is normal, what kind of job are you pursuing that pays less than 40-55k?
-Yes this is how I believe it works, if your making 300k your more or less paying half or near half your income in taxes if you live in nyc or cali. Correct me if I am wrong.

1. The industry I've worked in for the last six years starts at 40K or less. And a bachelor's degree is generally required. Most of my colleagues would be rather insulted by the idea that they're "doing something wrong" by not doubling that salary in 6 years.

2. Marginal tax rates dude. Marginal tax rates. You might pay the top rate (which currently starts at $379,150) but only on every dollar above that. Not on every dollar you earn.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Sounds like some life experience would be a good thing for you.

[bdubs]

40% of my graduating class went into accounting, most will become CAs =chartered accountants
"In Ontario, 62 per cent of CAs earn more than $100,000 a year. The average salary for a CA with five years experience is $113,140. And the average CA earns more than $168,000"
http://www.thestar.com/business/money91 ... nting-boom

Holy shit, why do accountants make so much money in Canada? Accountants in the US make far less than that. Even a 5 year verteran at a big 4 accounting firm (the most highly compensated accountants) doesn't usually make > 100k .

--LinkRemoved--

Also, I have heard that Canadian attorneys earn far less than American ones. The report that Raynier posted earlier supports that.

-Yes this is how I believe it works, if your making 300k your more or less paying half or near half your income in taxes if you live in nyc or cali. Correct me if I am wrong.

You're confusing marginal tax rates with average tax rates. The average rate is lower than the marginal rate. Many Americans have very substantial mortgage deductions that reduce their taxable income.

[Geon]

The top 10% of US households makes ~100K. You are saying all it takes to make more than 90% of American HOUSEHOLDS is a business degree from a respected school and 6 years experience?

Also, where is this magical world where doubling a base business salary in 6 years is common? Even if you have an extraordinary year a 10% increase is the most you will see. Also, even the CPAs I know start off around 55K (although admittedly after 7 years, being a Senior Manager making 6 figures isn’t uncommon) and there is a pretty large gap between general business degree (even from a very good business school) and being a CPA. And these are CPAs graduating from a top 20 accounting program.

1. Yes. Think of all the people who get useless degrees, or degrees that are focused on noble things like saving the endangered wooly rhino. These people are rich in spirit but they are not going to end up rich even after 30 years of work
2. Lots of people DO NOT WANT TO MAKE 100K +. They say they want to be rich, but they do not take the steps required to earn above average income. In fact most men willing to move to North Dakota or Wyoming or west Texas to go work in a mine or an oil field could crack 100k in probably 2-3 years.
3. Well the oil fields which have huge labour shortages are one and that doesn't even require a degree. Its pretty standard actually in business, whether its marketing, accounting-where the link to the star article showed starting students in CA in Ontario earn 45k starting with an average salary of 113k 5 years out which is a 150% in salary our doubling by 2.5 not just 2. And thats 5 years not 6. And accountants start lower than the average salary from my school, which averaged salaries where mid-low 50k when I graduated. Ie. those who went into management trainee programs are now earning about the same, hospitality about the same and sales jobs can earn just as much as lawyers 250k is quiet attainable bbut the problem is they tend to fire you around age 50 as you become to expensive financially.
4. The structure varies by industry, some industries pay you the same for 3-4 years then your salaries double, some see a steady yearly increase, and some use a combination of both. Just off the top of my head I remember 2 years ago when I graduated At&T offered my friend who was dual citizen a 60k starting salary out of undergrad. Another friend is making low 120~ k after 6 years of managing gas stations for the oil company. So no its not impossible or unrealistic, any major business is paying this. I can't imagine that major industrial firms or all those wall street and madison avenue firms are paying less than Canada.

[Geon]

-Then what is normal, what kind of job are you pursuing that pays less than 40-55k?
-Yes this is how I believe it works, if your making 300k your more or less paying half or near half your income in taxes if you live in nyc or cali. Correct me if I am wrong.

1. The industry I've worked in for the last six years starts at 40K or less. And a bachelor's degree is generally required. Most of my colleagues would be rather insulted by the idea that they're "doing something wrong" by not doubling that salary in 6 years.

2. Marginal tax rates dude. Marginal tax rates. You might pay the top rate (which currently starts at $379,150) but only on every dollar above that. Not on every dollar you earn.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Sounds like some life experience would be a good thing for you.

What industry were you in film?

No I was not confusing the 2 rates. At 300k one is paying roughly 50% average tax rate, when you factor in state and local taxes. Just revisited the calculator, sorry, I mixed up foreign and us taxes. Us is closer to 40%

[Tiago Splitter]

What industry were you in film?

Brokerage industry FTW. Yay for stock market collapses.

But seriously, your view on what is normal is completely warped.

EDIT: Also, 40% average rate is still too high, even if rates go up.

[Geon]

40% of my graduating class went into accounting, most will become CAs =chartered accountants
"In Ontario, 62 per cent of CAs earn more than $100,000 a year. The average salary for a CA with five years experience is $113,140. And the average CA earns more than $168,000"
http://www.thestar.com/business/money91 ... nting-boom

Holy shit, why do accountants make so much money in Canada? Accountants in the US make far less than that. Even a 5 year verteran at a big 4 accounting firm (the most highly compensated accountants) doesn't usually make > 100k .

--LinkRemoved--

Also, I have heard that Canadian attorneys earn far less than American ones. The report that Raynier posted earlier supports that.

-Yes this is how I believe it works, if your making 300k your more or less paying half or near half your income in taxes if you live in nyc or cali. Correct me if I am wrong.

You're confusing marginal tax rates with average tax rates. The average rate is lower than the marginal rate. Many Americans have very substantial mortgage deductions that reduce their taxable income.

How much of a deduction do american get for mortgage. Ie. if you earn 200k and buy a big 550k house, what kind of deduction are you looking at.

Canadian attorneys earn the pebble of an American attorney. The short answer is Canadian courts have SEVERE limits on awards, I think it is like 2 million in non direct cost/losses. Whereas I hear of Americans getting millions for injuries. So an injury attorney will never make 5 million dollars of a cripple guy, because the cripple guy can't get more than 2 million for injuries. Rayiner is 100% correct. a big law attorney after 5-7 years earns like 170k-210k where his american counterpart at the same firm might earn 270-300k+. Canadian judges earn more than US judges and so do prosecutors. Canadian law schools are not tiered. With the exception of U of T (where 45% make it into very good firms vs 30% for most other schools) there is no tier. It is just known that employers hire deeper into the B- range for U of T law grads vs b+ and up for all other schools. The other thing is small firm partners with 5 lawyers are charging 500 an hour which basically means with 10 hours of work a week they are earning the same as big "canadian" lawyers with 7 years experience or more. Ie. no real link between salary and firm unless one makes partner in a big firm.

I really don't know why American accountants earn so little. Ie. when the others where acting skeptical of an accountant earning alot I thought how bizarre. The only thing I can conclude is they must charge alot more money for the same services - which doesn't surprise me because everything in Canada is 30-40% more expensive. there has also been a shortage of accountants in Canada as it is a very boring job, and its the main reason why students shy away from it [It is why I did not do it]. Also to be a CA almost all your university electives minus half a semester will be the 17 CA qualification courses. That is of your 30 courses 17 minimum will go to CAing. Take out your major mandatory and your lucky if you get a full elective a year. So one must be fairly certain from first year if they want to be a CA. Also Canadian CAs are sought out in virtually all of the business industry in Canada if they have 5+ years experience because they are known for being smart and understanding numbers. I CA with experience could easily transfer as a mgmt consultant, a cfo, auditor, banker, etc. It is probably better than an MBA for opening up the door to upper mgmt jobs and CAs with 5 year experience are pretty much already partners or near partners in smaller firms and do little accounting if any. The only conclusion I could come to is it easier to be an american cpa, so there are more of them and the result is lower pay. That or the American tiered system is in play. If you don't have top grades or went to a top school you earn 50k for life like in US law, but if you went to a top school or have top grades then you earn like a quabillion dollars on wall street or something.

Come to think of it, it makes no sense why Canadian lawyers earn half of American lawyers when our accountants, bankers, vcs, and almost every other facet of business earn double. Maybe Canadian law is more equal, you won't earn 120k starting EVER, but you won't earn below 50k usually either. Most will earn between 50-100k.

[Geon]

What industry were you in film?

Brokerage industry FTW. Yay for stock market collapses.

But seriously, your view on what is normal is completely warped.

EDIT: Also, 40% average rate is still too high, even if rates go up.

Then what is it

http://www.calculator.net/take-home-pay ... &x=61&y=15

Based on your tax calculator with a 10% state and local and federal it seems 40% is about accurate

[Tiago Splitter]

What industry were you in film?

Brokerage industry FTW. Yay for stock market collapses.

But seriously, your view on what is normal is completely warped.

EDIT: Also, 40% average rate is still too high, even if rates go up.

Then what is it

http://www.calculator.net/take-home-pay ... &x=61&y=15

Based on your tax calculator with a 10% state and local and federal it seems 40% is about accurate

Whoever invented that calculator is a god damn moron. An 8% state tax rate means 24K in taxes on 300K salary? Really? I'd like to know which state has a flat tax with no deductions.

Someone making 300K in NYC would pay 19863 in state taxes. Assuming no other deductions.

--LinkRemoved--

Even with your estimates you only got to 36%.

[BruceWayne]

The reason why Geon's perspective is warped is, as he's hinted from various things he's said, he attends a top undergrad. That's really the only way he could hold some of the beliefs that he does about the job market for those with only a bachelors. Yes if you go to Princeton you have a shot at making 100K in 6 years. But that's not really a great selling point for the argument that a bachelors and 6 years is all most people need to make more money than 90 percent of the American populace. To bring things into perspective for Geon...even GETTING a job to begin with with only a bachelors (again assuming we aren't talking Princeton, Duke, Berkeley etc. here) is a huge hurdle, let alone making 6 figures in 6 years. hat's one of the things that I do credit law over other careers for. The barriers to entry aren't super high and set for you at age 18 (i.e if you don't go to the right college and/or choose a certain major you're done for--see banking, consulting, medicine, engineering...almost every other profession). Anyone who takes the LSAT and has a bachelors can become a lawyer. You don't even need work experience.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/1-2-gradu ... 00522.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/busin ... grads.html
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf

[Geon]

What industry were you in film?

Brokerage industry FTW. Yay for stock market collapses.

But seriously, your view on what is normal is completely warped.

EDIT: Also, 40% average rate is still too high, even if rates go up.

Then what is it

http://www.calculator.net/take-home-pay ... &x=61&y=15

Based on your tax calculator with a 10% state and local and federal it seems 40% is about accurate

Whoever invented that calculator is a god damn moron. An 8% state tax rate means 24K in taxes on 300K salary? Really? I'd like to know which state has a flat tax with no deductions.

Someone making 300K in NYC would pay 19863 in state taxes. Assuming no other deductions.

--LinkRemoved--

Even with your estimates you only got to 36%.

state and local was 10%, made a little difference. 30k, not 20k

[Tiago Splitter]

...

[Geon]

The reason why Geon's perspective is warped is, as he's hinted from various things he's said, he attends a top undergrad. That's really the only way he could hold some of the beliefs that he does about the job market for those with only a bachelors. Yes if you go to Princeton you have a shot at making 100K in 6 years. But that's not really a great selling point for the argument that a bachelors and 6 years is all most people need to make more money than 90 percent of the American populace. To bring things into perspective for Geon...even GETTING a job to begin with with only a bachelors (again assuming we aren't talking Princeton, Duke, Berkeley etc. here) is a huge hurdle, let alone making 6 figures in 6 years. hat's one of the things that I do credit law over other careers for. The barriers to entry aren't super high and set for you at age 18 (i.e if you don't go to the right college and/or choose a certain major you're done for--see banking, consulting, medicine, engineering...almost every other profession). Anyone who takes the LSAT and has a bachelors can become a lawyer. You don't even need work experience.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/1-2-gradu ... 00522.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/busin ... grads.html
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf

My thoughts:
The article showing 1 in 2 grads unemployed: Then why aren't these people out working in west texas, north dakota or wyoming where people are making very good above average salaries 60-80k and 100k is very achievable in 5 years if not standard. If I was to go dumb one day and couldn't read, I know I'd go to the alberta oilsands to go drive trucks or do labour jobs that with over time have people in the mid 20s earning well over 100k. North Dakota bakken region is the same equivalent. In fact one only needs a high school diploma never mind university and an associates degree after your first year would be wise. All one really needs to earn 100k is to go to a place like this but my guess is many grads don't want to go outside of their comfort zone. I mean moving away far to a place that doesn't have culture or arts, or the affinities of a major college town. There are jobs, the jobs just have nothing to do with what most the grads were trained for, but the entry requirements are low. Everyone knows the quickest way to get rich is just go around from boom town to boom town, if you want a job in an over-saturated market its going to be harder, too much competition, but if you want to live in a place with lower living cost and higher wages then boom town. In fact I myself I am seriously considering this option as oil workers and trades people in Alberta can easily clear 100k in 2-3 years of work with nothing more than a high school diploma to start and enrollment in a part time school that last 2-3 months a year called an apprenticeship. And while their wages top out at $51 an hour with over time being double pay and regular 84 hour work weeks, the money can add up quickly when you work 24 days straight with the rest of the days of off. From what I've heard the situation is parallel in North Dakota.
The only thing I can assume is that people with degrees feel they have too much prestige to work in the dirty oil business or they oppose oil from America because it will kill some wild animal, or they don't want to. Its not like this is Portugal or Spain where there really are NO JOBS, and portuguese have to go to africa or brazil for work.

I mean if there were no jobs then how are all those illegals getting rich and owning houses and cars while Americans are cleaning their tables when they eat out or serving them coffee. Hell even teaching english jobs in dubai pay 3k starting a month tax free, with living cost all paid for. That is 36k tax free. After 2 years it goes up to 50k. So if one made this a career, one would retire like this:
50k x 38 + 36k x 2 = 1.972 million by retirement. No debt. 2 kids maybe cost you 200k a piece = 400k, + house (for retirement) 400k + nice car 70k + 100k in misc.
All in all you'd still be retiring with a million net dollars by your early 60s. Which would put you off a hellauva lot better off that most Americans.

Or one could just teach until they were 44 and earn a million net dollars or earn 500k by age 34.


When I see people picking degrees like philosophy you have to assume that they intended to go to grad school. Because even my grade 9 religion teacher told me if you plan to do philosophy there are only 2 options = professor, or something else. So why would anyone just do a philosophy degree and expect to find meaningful employment with no internships, no experience, no related courses, no nothing basically bewilders me. You either go to grad school, or you spend all your time learning about an industry. To be quiet honest my degree was useless in finding my employment. There were no courses on Venture capital, I had to go to firms and interview hr people on what questions they'd ask a potential applicant, then ask what they did and figure out how they did it. Do this for any job you want and you should get hired unless you have mental deficiency.

[rayiner]

I really don't know why American accountants earn so little. Ie. when the others where acting skeptical of an accountant earning alot I thought how bizarre.

No, it's that Canadian accountants make a lot. There are basically three industries here in the U.S. where you can rapidly ramp up to $100k with just an undergraduate degree then reliably clear $150k without getting a graduate degree: consulting, finance, and software engineering. Two of those have the same up-or-out pressures as law, necessitating an undergraduate degree. The third forces you to move into management to break salary ceilings, which necessitates an MBA or PhD in most cases.

Even from top undergraduate schools here in the US, people don't make the kind of money you're talking about: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... graduates/

Starting out at $60-65k and ramping up to $125k in mid-career is a very typical outcome even amongst Harvard, etc.

Also, it's misleading to say that anyone who could get big law could get into the executive-level positions that would allow you to break into the $150k+ jobs on the business side. Success in law rewards technical skill to a much greater degree than success in business. An average people person with great analytical skills will do a lot better in the law the playing the social politicking games necessary to get ahead in business.

[Birdnals]

Also, in 29/50 states a Baccalaureate degree of 150 hours is required to sit for CPA. So finance is in itself a sudo-graduate degree.

ETA: some states require 150 to be licensed but not to sit for the exam, so that number should be more than 29, probably closer to +40

[classifiedsbakken]

According to my view, Lawyers who work in big cities [especially New York, Chicago, LA, and DC] will work significantly more than lawyers in more rural areas. The time duration is also depend upon the condition of the dealing case. Please produce some more attachments at the topic to view detail information.

[SPAM BULLSHIT].

[chup]

According to my view, Lawyers who work in big cities [especially New York, Chicago, LA, and DC] will work significantly more than lawyers in more rural areas. The time duration is also depend upon the condition of the dealing case. Please produce some more attachments at the topic to view detail information.

[SPAM BULLSHIT].

[androstan]

Even your new question:
"What is the median/modal length of time a lawyer spends in their initial BigLaw firm?"
Is still open to the same criticism, as one could argue the median lawyer does not spend any time in big law. Playing these kind of word games are silly and waste forum space, waste my time, your time and people reading this time. People playing these kind of word games are really just trolls, and the mods ought to crackdown on them, because more often than not, they contribute nothing to conversation/forum, and they have a pattern of posting these useless responses in every thread as they know nothing. Yes I may know very little about big law, but at least I keep my mouth shut and don't go around into every big law thread and criticisize the wording of the question of the ops when I have nothing to contributr. In fact these trolls are driving away the few knowledgeable posters who actually make useful post in this forum.

Now I am not saying you are one of the trolls, but you just have to look above in this thread to see them. I actually found the 2nd part of your post informative.

So what do those who drop out of big law by 2-3 year and 5th year mark do afterwards? Do they go to other big law firms, or completely leave big law? Do they stay in law or just leave law altogether? And if they leave law then what do they do?
Whats TTT (tier 3)?

Even though I agree that there shouldn't have been any comment that "median lawyers" don't get Biglaw and all that nitpicking hooey, this response is just counterproductive and weakens your side.

In his question, median modifies "length of time," not lawyer, so no, it doesn't fall prey to the same linguistic mistake as your phrasing. All that LSAT "hocus pocus" is about reading comprehension and the grasp of the English language, so it doesn't help greatly to lash out at people who utilize those skills. Furthermore, your response is riddled with typos (although I'm sure my posts have plenty, this post went beyond that of the average post I've seen on this forum) and additionally seems blindly driven by emotion. Learn to accept minor criticism instead of lashing out at "trolls" who simply point out your mistakes.

Douchebags Using Language with Precision: +1
Whiners Commiting LanguageFail: -1