Making under 100K as a Lawyer
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:05 pm
-----------------
Thispollywolly88 is really sad.....they should pay at least 100K minimum
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=245417
Thispollywolly88 is really sad.....they should pay at least 100K minimum
But you can happy in a lot of jobs making 100K without going to law school, so what's the point? The main reason people go to professional school is to make a 6 figure salary. If you are going to make 40-50K as a Prosecutor/Public Defender, you may as well be a High School Teacher. Same salary with significant less stress. Prosecutors and public defenders all seem REALLY bitter and angry at life too, unlike Teachersexitoptions wrote:The lawyers I know who are happy make under $100k.
What? No. The reason most people go to professional school is because they don't know what else to do. The second reason is to be a professional in the chosen profession.pollywolly88 wrote:But you can happy in a lot of jobs making 100K without going to law school, so what's the point? The main reason people go to professional school is to make a 6 figure salaryexitoptions wrote:The lawyers I know who are happy make under $100k.
Well that's stupid actually. Any Professional job is significantly more stressful than a regular job like Teacher, etc.exitoptions wrote:What? No. The reason most people go to professional school is because they don't know what else to do. The second reason is to be a professional in the chosen profession.pollywolly88 wrote:But you can happy in a lot of jobs making 100K without going to law school, so what's the point? The main reason people go to professional school is to make a 6 figure salaryexitoptions wrote:The lawyers I know who are happy make under $100k.
What's wrong about speaking the truth? You don't believe in freedom of speech???Clemenceau wrote:You, of all people, should not be accusing people of being strivers.
If you have chosen not to pursue law school then get off this forum.
It's not top 5%. You can make 40-80K without law school......BearLaw wrote:Yes, how awful it must be to reside firmly in the top 5% of US income earners, and top .5% world wide.
I know some people who talk and think like OP.pollywolly88 wrote:Well that's stupid actually. Any Professional job is significantly more stressful than a regular job like Teacher, etc.exitoptions wrote:What? No. The reason most people go to professional school is because they don't know what else to do. The second reason is to be a professional in the chosen profession.pollywolly88 wrote:But you can happy in a lot of jobs making 100K without going to law school, so what's the point? The main reason people go to professional school is to make a 6 figure salaryexitoptions wrote:The lawyers I know who are happy make under $100k.
It's absolutely RETARDED to become a Prosecutor/Public Defender or even a Lawyer in a small firm, it's EXTREMELY stressful work but without the pay. Do you think I wanna make 40-60K to be BOSSED AROUND by an angry SHITLAW partner??? Hell no. These people are all STRIVERS because they just want to say they are LAWYERS for the prestige. The stress is only worth it for the $$$. If there's no $$$, hell no I ain't doing it.
The only truths you've spoken are about yourself, and they are sad, sad truths indeed.pollywolly88 wrote:What's wrong about speaking the truth? You don't believe in freedom of speech???Clemenceau wrote:You, of all people, should not be accusing people of being strivers.
If you have chosen not to pursue law school then get off this forum.
a) Bullshit, a single person making 100K is in the 96th percentile of income.pollywolly88 wrote:It's not top 5%. You can make 40-80K without law school......BearLaw wrote:Yes, how awful it must be to reside firmly in the top 5% of US income earners, and top .5% world wide.
Mods, please educate Polly on the extent of First Amendment protections, and how they apply to private parties.pollywolly88 wrote:What's wrong about speaking the truth? You don't believe in freedom of speech???Clemenceau wrote:You, of all people, should not be accusing people of being strivers.
If you have chosen not to pursue law school then get off this forum.
believing in the virtues of freedom of speech has nothing to do with the limitations of constitutional protections...MarkinKansasCity wrote:Mods, please educate Polly on the extent of First Amendment protections, and how they apply to private parties.pollywolly88 wrote:What's wrong about speaking the truth? You don't believe in freedom of speech???Clemenceau wrote:You, of all people, should not be accusing people of being strivers.
If you have chosen not to pursue law school then get off this forum.
Using the term "freedom of speech" instead of a more general term like "diversity of opinions" or "free and open discussion" suggests a right protected by the government, rather than a more general principle.lacrossebrother wrote: believing in the virtues of freedom of speech has nothing to do with the limitations of constitutional protections...
My bad, I should have been more clear in my OP.lacrossebrother wrote:why would you measure yourself only against other individuals and therefore exclude people who make a lot of money and therefore got married?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012 ... .html?_r=0
how could you not believe in a right guaranteed by the government?MarkinKansasCity wrote:Using the term "freedom of speech" instead of a more general term like "diversity of opinions" or "free and open discussion" suggests a right protected by the government, rather than a more general principle.lacrossebrother wrote: believing in the virtues of freedom of speech has nothing to do with the limitations of constitutional protections...
It protects you from government action, but it does not force others to facilitate your speech.lacrossebrother wrote:how could you not believe in a right guaranteed by the government?MarkinKansasCity wrote:Using the term "freedom of speech" instead of a more general term like "diversity of opinions" or "free and open discussion" suggests a right protected by the government, rather than a more general principle.lacrossebrother wrote: believing in the virtues of freedom of speech has nothing to do with the limitations of constitutional protections...