Top Law Schools

If you didn't have the debt, would you still do it? This includes at any time - from straight out of law school till now.

It is not that simple. Would I leave if I had no debt? No. I don't have any debt now and I don't leave.

Would I leave if I had a time machine that would go back to me preparing for the LSAT? 100%

The question assumes you can get out when you want to. It's much more complicated than that.

You sound fun ^

def.

such an easy job to make fatter stacks of cash than most ppl will see in they entire life

I mean, if u got better opportunities to make almost $200k at age 25, like th person above apparently, I mean go for it.... but yea 4sho I would be doing this. It's a pretty easy job for a young single guy make mad money pull an all nighter once in a while look sweet doin it shit man

my alternartive was making 70k engineering workin the same hours i mean shit lol most my homies i grew up with work this much for wayy less smh

I feel like I won the biglaw lottery--like my team, like my work, and since I don't work in NY I'm not getting completely anhillated--currently on pace to bill 2200.

All that said, if I didn't have the debt I'd work to my next bonus and peace the fuuuck out (but to where I dunno cuz I'm lit. Also, I'm a litigator)

texas1100 wrote:You sound fun ^

This is not a very helpful response if you want people to answer the question honestly.

I always tell lawyer, doctors, etc., do you really think they'd pay you $200K~500K (or more) if the job was easy? Obviously, there is a catch. Unless you are lucky, it's supposed to be stressful and sh!tty, at least in the beginning.

Try working in a factory, warehouse or construction. For $20 per hour or something. Now, that is pure suckage.

Back to OP's post, I would do it 2-3 years and that's it. BigLaw's stepping stone potential, money (to pay off loans) and superb training are worth the suffering for that limited amount of time.

What is the point of this question? Not everyone does biglaw for the money.

There are plenty of prestige chasing workaholic type A overachievers out there who want to do this job. Your law school should have a fair number of them.

There are other people who are simply good at it, like some of the intellectual aspects and don't need sleep, they are prestige whores about the work itself.

The best people for big law are the ones who use it as an ego boost. The people who just want the money get burned out faster.

I have no debt and plan to do it for a little over 2 years for the training and credential (I'm in corporate). After that, I'm planning to shoot for a more generalist role at a government agency in a lower COL area.

Also I should mention that there are those few associates who are just better at the work then everyone else. They don't struggle.

I have a feeling that a lot of the people voting yes and hell yes on this thread are people who have not started working in big law yet, or haven't been there for longer than a year yet.

If I had zero debt but no savings or assets otherwise, then I would do it for training/savings/credentials. But if I already had enough savings or have enough credentials for a decent job then hell no. The job just sucks.

The better question to ask is: if money is a non-issue, would you still do biglaw?

spyke123 wrote:If I had zero debt but no savings or assets otherwise, then I would do it for training/savings/credentials. But if I already had enough savings or have enough credentials for a decent job then hell no. The job just sucks.

The better question to ask is: if money is a non-issue, would you still do biglaw?

What do you mean non-issue? $90,000 or so after taxes is still decent money.

I can only think of one person who was independently wealthy who did big law mostly because it was a family thing to do Harvard or Yale and then law.

Other than that everyone (other than maybe PI people who chase different values) wants money.

I would guess a fair number of people in biglaw have some kind of family money (parents are doctors maybe) but I could be wrong about that as I've never asked. Certainly many people in law school have family money supporting them through school. You may be right about these people doing biglaw for the credentials and to build up savings for themselves. But that is still about money.

How many independently wealthy people have you seen in biglaw?

Npret wrote:

spyke123 wrote:If I had zero debt but no savings or assets otherwise, then I would do it for training/savings/credentials. But if I already had enough savings or have enough credentials for a decent job then hell no. The job just sucks.

The better question to ask is: if money is a non-issue, would you still do biglaw?

What do you mean non-issue? $90,000 or so after taxes is still decent money.

I can only think of one person who was independently wealthy who did big law mostly because it was a family thing to do Harvard or Yale and then law.

Other than that everyone (other than maybe PI people who chase different values) wants money.

I would guess a fair number of people in biglaw have some kind of family money (parents are doctors maybe) but I could be wrong about that as I've never asked. Certainly many people in law school have family money supporting them through school. You may be right about these people doing biglaw for the credentials and to build up savings for themselves. But that is still about money.

How many independently wealthy people have you seen in biglaw?

I am not sure if we are in any disagreement here. I never said biglaw salary was low (is that why you are making reference to $90,000?). I am doing biglaw for money and most people are probably doing it for money because in this world you cannot live without money.

My point was that the threshold question should not be "having no debt" rather it should be "having enough money". Said another way, if you are a billionaire/millionaire would you still do biglaw? Because having no debt does not mean you don't need money. I bet some people will still do it. There are folks who truly enjoy the work and feed off on pressure. And some people will do it for prestige. There are many reasons why biglaw may be attractive.

It looks like you understood me to say that most people don't want money or are wealthy. No, I agree with you. Most people are doing it for money and most people aren't rich. That was my point.

spyke123 wrote:

Npret wrote:

spyke123 wrote:If I had zero debt but no savings or assets otherwise, then I would do it for training/savings/credentials. But if I already had enough savings or have enough credentials for a decent job then hell no. The job just sucks.

The better question to ask is: if money is a non-issue, would you still do biglaw?

What do you mean non-issue? $90,000 or so after taxes is still decent money.

I can only think of one person who was independently wealthy who did big law mostly because it was a family thing to do Harvard or Yale and then law.

Other than that everyone (other than maybe PI people who chase different values) wants money.

I would guess a fair number of people in biglaw have some kind of family money (parents are doctors maybe) but I could be wrong about that as I've never asked. Certainly many people in law school have family money supporting them through school. You may be right about these people doing biglaw for the credentials and to build up savings for themselves. But that is still about money.

How many independently wealthy people have you seen in biglaw?

I am not sure if we are in any disagreement here. I never said biglaw salary was low (is that why you are making reference to $90,000?). I am doing biglaw for money and most people are probably doing it for money because in this world you cannot live without money.

My point was that the threshold question should not be "having no debt" rather it should be "having enough money". Said another way, if you are a billionaire/millionaire would you still do biglaw? I bet some people will still do it. There are folks who truly enjoy the work and feed off on pressure. And some people will do it for prestige. There are many reasons why biglaw may be attractive.

It looks like you understood me to say that most people don't want money or are wealthy. No, I agree with you. Most people are doing it for money and most people aren't rich. That was my point.

I just trying to understand what you meant by "non-issue" because that was the question you were asking, I think. Anyway my experience is that associates for whom money is a true non-issue is a tiny percent of people who are in biglaw. So maybe that's your answer?

spyke123 wrote:My point was that the threshold question should not be "having no debt" rather it should be "having enough money". Said another way, if you are a billionaire/millionaire would you still do biglaw? Because having no debt does not mean you don't need money. I bet some people will still do it. There are folks who truly enjoy the work and feed off on pressure. And some people will do it for prestige. There are many reasons why biglaw may be attractive.

It looks like you understood me to say that most people don't want money or are wealthy. No, I agree with you. Most people are doing it for money and most people aren't rich. That was my point.

Yeah you'd lose that bet in a heartbeat. Try to find ONE TLSer who is in biglaw and will say they would keep their job if they suddenly inherited a billion dollars.

Literally no one (and I mean literally) would do biglaw "just for the fun of it."

PeanutsNJam wrote:

spyke123 wrote:My point was that the threshold question should not be "having no debt" rather it should be "having enough money". Said another way, if you are a billionaire/millionaire would you still do biglaw? Because having no debt does not mean you don't need money. I bet some people will still do it. There are folks who truly enjoy the work and feed off on pressure. And some people will do it for prestige. There are many reasons why biglaw may be attractive.

It looks like you understood me to say that most people don't want money or are wealthy. No, I agree with you. Most people are doing it for money and most people aren't rich. That was my point.

Yeah you'd lose that bet in a heartbeat. Try to find ONE TLSer who is in biglaw and will say they would keep their job if they suddenly inherited a billion dollars.

Literally no one (and I mean literally) would do biglaw "just for the fun of it."

I don't think people would do it for the fun of it, but I know several attorneys, both at my firm and from law school, who are wealthy. Their parents bought them houses, cars, paid for school, etc. I honestly don't know why they work in biglaw - some are even mid levels and seniors. I think they do it because that's just what you do if your parents are also biglaw partners, GCs, C-suite execs, and the like. Personally, I'd want to do something to help people, like run a nonprofit or work in PI but that's just me.

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:

PeanutsNJam wrote:

spyke123 wrote:My point was that the threshold question should not be "having no debt" rather it should be "having enough money". Said another way, if you are a billionaire/millionaire would you still do biglaw? Because having no debt does not mean you don't need money. I bet some people will still do it. There are folks who truly enjoy the work and feed off on pressure. And some people will do it for prestige. There are many reasons why biglaw may be attractive.

It looks like you understood me to say that most people don't want money or are wealthy. No, I agree with you. Most people are doing it for money and most people aren't rich. That was my point.

Yeah you'd lose that bet in a heartbeat. Try to find ONE TLSer who is in biglaw and will say they would keep their job if they suddenly inherited a billion dollars.

Literally no one (and I mean literally) would do biglaw "just for the fun of it."

I don't think people would do it for the fun of it, but I know several attorneys, both at my firm and from law school, who are wealthy. Their parents bought them houses, cars, paid for school, etc. I honestly don't know why they work in biglaw - some are even mid levels and seniors. I think they do it because that's just what you do if your parents are also biglaw partners, GCs, C-suite execs, and the like. Personally, I'd want to do something to help people, like run a nonprofit or work in PI but that's just me.

How many of those people have a billion dollars? Of course that's a ridiculous sum to compare to in the first place.

Like I said there are wealthy people but I've only known one person who was that rich who was in big law and his family wealth was real estate in NYC so no idea how much they are actually worth- doubt it's a billion though but maybe it is now. No idea.

Edit: maybe the question should be would you do big law if you had a trust fund of a certain amount where the income would let you live however you like but not insane billionaire rich? I'm thinking you're just looking for how much is enough?

Or maybe the right question is how many people would slog through the LSAT, take debt for law school and go to biglaw is biglaw salary was 75,000 or 80,000? It's the money that draws almost everyone.