Lawyers aren't supposed to be rich Forum

[dixiecupdrinking]

Disappointed that we're on page 2 and this isn't a full blown UBI thread yet.

I'm trying here

[FSK]

Alternative take: Its not about the money, its about the power, and starting as a lawyer is a well tread track into being a KENOSHA POLITICAL OPERATIVE

[SemiReverseSplinter]

returning to the op, i'm pretty sure we've all been flamed since op hasn't responded itt

OP here. Thanks for the responses. I'm not trying to flame, I just don't like the idea that the legal profession (more just the private practice sector) is just another part of a larger market, where everyone is trying to scam and avoid being scammed. I guess "this is just the way it is" will have to do. Cause you're all right, this mindset isn't changing anytime soon. But if it does change, it would have to start with the partners at best biglaw firms and work its way down.

And sorry, I really don't have any genius insight. I always wanted to be a private practice lawyer, but never really cared about getting rich. Now that I'm there, many things seem so contrary to actually helping the client.

[Hikikomorist]

This is disturbing. Besides, the cast majority of lawyers, even at large law firms, aren't actually rich.

This. It will take the average biglaw associate 7 years to make 300k base and a whole lot of billable hours, stress, and missed vacation and family time.

That amount of money is made as a bonus by some 23 year old on Wall Street.

The only sure way to wealth is to become the captain of your own ship. Can't do this by being an employee (or having an employee mindset).

While living in an expensive city and paying down student loans.

I dunno tho, assuming you can stay in big law for 5 years or so and then go on to another lucrative position, I kind of like the gradual/guaranteed salary raises in biglaw versus the 23 year old who may be out of that job in 2 years. Also, I can't imagine there are more than a couple hundred 23 year olds making 300k bonuses in the entire country, so don't make it out to be standard or something. Assuming you are getting paid NYC biglaw market and have a situation that allows you to save and invest, over the course of 20 years (so lets say, by the time you are 45) if you plan accordingly and live smartly, you can definitely have 2m or more saved up, plus property, etc. Which, right, isn't like "go live on an island and never lift a finger again" money, but it's also more than probably 99% of Americans that age have, and more than 99.9% of people in the world have. Sure, it isn't 20m or 200m, but I think the returns are diminished at that point anyways. Once you have enough money so that you never have to worry about housing, food, health insurance, clothes, etc. again, and you can go on really nice vacations, give to charity, go out to really fancy meals and expensive shows and such, the rest is just "oh, i cant buy that yacht" or "oh, i can't buy that 30k rolex". Like, at that point, who really cares.

Why do you assume five years in biglaw but only two years in IB, especially for the type of all-star pulling down $300k bonuses?

[Anonymous User]

This is disturbing. Besides, the cast majority of lawyers, even at large law firms, aren't actually rich.

This. It will take the average biglaw associate 7 years to make 300k base and a whole lot of billable hours, stress, and missed vacation and family time.

That amount of money is made as a bonus by some 23 year old on Wall Street.

The only sure way to wealth is to become the captain of your own ship. Can't do this by being an employee (or having an employee mindset).

While living in an expensive city and paying down student loans.

I dunno tho, assuming you can stay in big law for 5 years or so and then go on to another lucrative position, I kind of like the gradual/guaranteed salary raises in biglaw versus the 23 year old who may be out of that job in 2 years. Also, I can't imagine there are more than a couple hundred 23 year olds making 300k bonuses in the entire country, so don't make it out to be standard or something. Assuming you are getting paid NYC biglaw market and have a situation that allows you to save and invest, over the course of 20 years (so lets say, by the time you are 45) if you plan accordingly and live smartly, you can definitely have 2m or more saved up, plus property, etc. Which, right, isn't like "go live on an island and never lift a finger again" money, but it's also more than probably 99% of Americans that age have, and more than 99.9% of people in the world have. Sure, it isn't 20m or 200m, but I think the returns are diminished at that point anyways. Once you have enough money so that you never have to worry about housing, food, health insurance, clothes, etc. again, and you can go on really nice vacations, give to charity, go out to really fancy meals and expensive shows and such, the rest is just "oh, i cant buy that yacht" or "oh, i can't buy that 30k rolex". Like, at that point, who really cares.

Why do you assume five years in biglaw but only two years in IB, especially for the type of all-star pulling down $300k bonuses?

Point was that the saving, planning in advance 5th year biglawyer is much more common than the 23 year old IBer making that sort of money.

[pancakes3]

IB has better exit options and it's easier for them to jump ship. Bankers can also have the credentials to go to an M7 B-school.

[favabeansoup]

I'm not trying to flame, I just don't like the idea that the legal profession (more just the private practice sector) is just another part of a larger market, where everyone is trying to scam and avoid being scammed. I guess "this is just the way it is" will have to do. .

This isn't just the legal profession. You find this in the entire business/financial industry. You can't really go and start complaining about how lawyers are making too much when the entire point of private practice (same for accountants, bankers, et al) is to make money. There will never be a time where biglaw, hell even solo attorney shops, firms decide to say "let's go ahead and make less money because we are overpaid." It's not scamming if everyone knows your scamming and scams everyone else in return, that's just the market.

There are public defenders, PI work, legal aid, and a whole host of other advocacy groups that aren't in the private practice/business side. Those are still part of the legal profession. Those are open to any and all lawyers who feel the pursuit of money in the private sector isn't justified.

[SFSpartan]

To answer OP's original question - no, I don't have this sentiment. But the answer probably depends on how we define "rich". If someone is "rich" once they hit a certain income percentile (say, top 25% of incomes, top 10%, etc.), then many lawyers are rich, as corporate attorneys and high-powered litigators tend to be very well compensated. If making the same salary as someone in IB is "rich" then most lawyers are not rich, but neither is 95+% of the population.

Bottom line: As jobs go, law is a decent path to a secure, upper middle class life if you do certain types of work. It's never going to be a good way to make fuck you money though.

[stoopkid13]

Have lawyer salaries been keeping up with those of other white-collar professionals.

My understanding is that lawyer compensation has not kept pace with banking compensation, largely because of the growth in deal values. Lawyers are paid by the hour; bankers are paid as a percentage of the deal. As deals have become bigger, the gap has widened.

[Pokemon]

Clients believe that lawyers add value, and they pay for even some of the most deliberately inefficient things we do.

Nah. Most of the time it's CYA. Most biglaw partners aren't worth 1/3 of their billing rates.

Clients routinely throw money in the garbage.

Companies frequently pay millions and billions for the sole purpose of reducing risk. CYA *is* value. And to preempt the automation/changing business model discussion, it will be value until whenever clients decide that it isn't.

(Assumes clients have any meaningful idea what "risk" is)

And just lol @ "I hired a $1200/hr guy, don't blame me if shit hits the fan!" having *value*.

Well, at least in transactional practice, the whole system of law firms giving companies an opinion does a couple things, namely providing a type of "insurance" in case the law firm really effed up and missed/misstated/misguaged some risk(s), and helps assuage the company/management that the transaction is on the up-and-up (lawyers signed off, and they would say no if it was not, so it must be okay). It's CYA bc the GC can tell management that "prestigious" outside counsel is okay with the deal, management can tell board that GC/outside counsel are okay with it, and everyone has a finger to point, and the opinion is the piece of paper that let's the firm gets sued when they screw up.

And to be fair, on a lot of deals where lawyers are billing at over $1000, legal fees are sometimes rounding errors because of the deal sizes. These types of company are not typically price-sensitive and don't care as much if they spend a mill or two on a deal that nets the company several hundred million (or more).

Tcr regarding the tired cliche of lawyers do not add value.

[los blancos]

Lawyers [generally] do not add value. They're [generally] rent-seekers without any truly valuable skills. They don't build shit or heal people. They're still necessary and still add value in certain contexts, but the top of the profession is also overpaid as fuck. None of this is really controversial. And no one has to feel guilty about it.

[Anonymous User]

IB has better exit options and it's easier for them to jump ship. Bankers can also have the credentials to go to an M7 B-school.

Yes, and...? My point was not to say that being a lawyer is more lucrative than being an IBanker, it was that it is easier and much more common to be a biglawyer who saves 20 or 30 or more % of his income and invests well and plans for his future and makes, in some years, 30-50k more a year for an extended period of time, than to be a 23 year old in IBanking who is making that kind of money. There just aren't that many people in the latter situation.

[Anonymous User]

deleted

[pancakes3]

IB has better exit options and it's easier for them to jump ship. Bankers can also have the credentials to go to an M7 B-school.

Yes, and...? My point was not to say that being a lawyer is more lucrative than being an IBanker, it was that it is easier and much more common to be a biglawyer who saves 20 or 30 or more % of his income and invests well and plans for his future and makes, in some years, 30-50k more a year for an extended period of time, than to be a 23 year old in IBanking who is making that kind of money. There just aren't that many people in the latter situation.

my post was responding to Hikko's question of why BL lawyers last longer than i-bankers. ppl take the path of least resistance.

[PeanutsNJam]

Also, Ibankers don't get 300k bonus in year 2. You're thinking private equity.

[delusional]

returning to the op, i'm pretty sure we've all been flamed since op hasn't responded itt

OP here. Thanks for the responses. I'm not trying to flame, I just don't like the idea that the legal profession (more just the private practice sector) is just another part of a larger market, where everyone is trying to scam and avoid being scammed. I guess "this is just the way it is" will have to do. Cause you're all right, this mindset isn't changing anytime soon. But if it does change, it would have to start with the partners at best biglaw firms and work its way down.

And sorry, I really don't have any genius insight. I always wanted to be a private practice lawyer, but never really cared about getting rich. Now that I'm there, many things seem so contrary to actually helping the client.

This is the nature of capitalism and free market economics. If everyone operated with perfect information about everything would cost the amount it should and everyone would be paid the same amount. The way to get rich, which everyone wants to do, is to lie in one form or another.

[delusional]

Clients believe that lawyers add value, and they pay for even some of the most deliberately inefficient things we do.

Nah. Most of the time it's CYA. Most biglaw partners aren't worth 1/3 of their billing rates.

Clients routinely throw money in the garbage.

Companies frequently pay millions and billions for the sole purpose of reducing risk. CYA *is* value. And to preempt the automation/changing business model discussion, it will be value until whenever clients decide that it isn't.

(Assumes clients have any meaningful idea what "risk" is)

And just lol @ "I hired a $1200/hr guy, don't blame me if shit hits the fan!" having *value*.

The fact that clients suffer from (a) principal/agent issues and (b) idiocy is not our problem. We sell, they buy. Sometimes it's legit, sometimes it's just milking a name.

Who cares? Law schools scam lawyers, lawyers scam corporations, and corporations, with the help of lawyers, scam everyone. Just be happy that the economy is structured in a way that moving commas counts as a "skill."

The q posed in the OP was basically "are [big]lawyers and law firms worth the gargantuan sums of $$$ that are spent on them," my answer was "lolno", and it sounds like you mostly agree.

Lawyers (generally) do not create wealth or anything of value. They're a necessary but overly expensive transaction cost. The overly expensive part is largely because clients are dumb.

You define worth and value in a very specific way and then conclude that lawyers' services don't match that definition. Biglaw partners are worth their billing rates precisely because CYA has value. CYA is the engine behind the US Corporatocracy. For example, public shareholders have no way to monitor the performance of the companies they have a stake in. Through a system of ass-covering, they can be somewhat protected against egregious wrongdoing by management. Lawyers are a big part of that, both in their role in articulating to the public management's actions in covering their asses through SEC disclosures, and in their semi-independent roles as counselors to and advocates for the company's position. This is a tremendous value-add, regardless of your chosen definition.

[star fox]

Please change thread title to "Lawyers are supposed to be compensated at the whatever the market deems their value to be"

[grand inquisitor]

you are falling into op's trap and mixing up normative and descriptive claims