Dream job is to defend DUIs... What are my options? Forum

[LBJ's Hair]

I honestly can't tell if this is a troll or not but I'm assuming it isn't. If it is, well-played.

Didn't even realize I hit anonymous. Don't even see what difference it makes, or why you and another poster are crying about it.

I don't think anyone is questioning whether it's theoretically possible to run a successful DUI shop. They're making the extremely reasonable point that most small businesses fail and if you're making mid-six figures with benefits at BigLaw and know basically nothing about running a solo practice, you should think twice before quitting to hang up a shingle.

You should do proper research and prepare. But it's not that different than any person that leaves their comfortable office job to start a business. There are people that risk way more money/income/comfort to start a business.

I'm also like, frankly, flabbergasted that you think a restaurant owner could give OP useful advice about opening up a solo practice. They're completely different businesses: Different cost structure, revenue model, different market...As to Facebook/Twitter....just lol. This reads like a scene from Silicon Valley.

There are several entrepreneurs I know that have been successful running multiple types of businesses. I know for instance, solo attorneys that run successful businesses completely unrelated to law, because they have good business acumen. And they would parrot my opinion on this. I know plenty of people that own several types of successful businesses, from Doctor's offices, to real estate investments, the stock market, to retail businesses.

Also yes - plenty of people in the Silicon Valley risk comfortable, high paying jobs to start a business. I know plenty of people that have risked far more than just 6 digits and benefits.

Your post is actually hilarious. But you do you, and keep on believing what you want to believe. I actually prefer people with your mentality, it makes it easier for the rest of us to make money.

OP, most of this thread is a waste of your time. I'm guessing the majority of people here who have replied to you aside from AVBucks4239 and I have never dabbled in any type of start-up or business endeavor. You can tell from their mentality. If you want some good resources that may help with your research, feel free to PM me.

I spent several years before law school working with SV startups. I'm familiar with like...."entrepreneurship" as you describe it. This is extremely different.

Silicon Valley is a totally different animal than law. When you launch a startup with VC money, your risk-reward is asymmetrical. If you fail, you lose your time, and salary (but usually you're still taking a salary). But mostly you're losing like, some VC's money. They're the ones paying for your electricity, your engineers' salaries, etc. If you succeed, you're worth potentially hundreds of millions of dollars. So even if you only have a 10% chance of success, it's probably worth it, risk adjusted. The payoff curve is basically an option: the downside is capped at a couple hundred grand of foregone salary, the upside is potentially unlimited. And "failed startup CEO" doesn't really carry a stigma in Palo Alto anyway. So you're still employable at a Google or whatever.

None of that is true of a lawyer hanging up a shack. OP will be eating all of the costs himself: his/her downside isn't capped. The foregone salary is material. There's not really a possibility of returning to his/her old job several years from now, because s/he's practicing a non-transferable area of law and frankly, people who are used to being their own boss aren't viewed as great employees in hierarchical law firms. So the career risk is massive. You'll probably fail--the skills necessary for being a good BigLaw junior lawyer are not at all like the ones necessary for starting a high-volume DUI practice. And then what's the upside? It's not a jillion dollars. It's based on your own time. it doesn't scale. And there are *already people who do DUI work. It's not like this is some undiscovered market.

I understand the sort of contrarian like, "oh, take risks! be your own boss! entrepreneurship" impulse you have. And if you *have clients you're taking with you*, I completely understand why say, Robbie Kaplan would go "fuck it, I'm starting my own law firm." But in *this case*...just...the math, the industry, OP's background, nothing makes sense.

[Aptitude]

Silicon Valley is a totally different animal than law.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/10/atrium-legal/

[cavalier1138]

Gotta love the good ol' American bootstrapping argument going on here. "Mark Zuckerberg did it, so everyone else whose business model got torched by Facebook doesn't exist! And if they do exist, they failed because they're bad people! You're not going to fail, person I'm selling on my idea, because you're not bad, right?"

Some startup ventures succeed. Lots of them fail. In terms of DUI practices, basically all but one of them in a given region will fail. Unless you have the magic formula for becoming that one person, there's no way to be assured of success. And if you do have that magic formula, seems like you should be keeping your mouth shut and running off to earn your millions.

[Yulilo]

I honestly can't tell if this is a troll or not but I'm assuming it isn't. If it is, well-played.

Didn't even realize I hit anonymous. Don't even see what difference it makes, or why you and another poster are crying about it.

I don't think anyone is questioning whether it's theoretically possible to run a successful DUI shop. They're making the extremely reasonable point that most small businesses fail and if you're making mid-six figures with benefits at BigLaw and know basically nothing about running a solo practice, you should think twice before quitting to hang up a shingle.

You should do proper research and prepare. But it's not that different than any person that leaves their comfortable office job to start a business. There are people that risk way more money/income/comfort to start a business.

I'm also like, frankly, flabbergasted that you think a restaurant owner could give OP useful advice about opening up a solo practice. They're completely different businesses: Different cost structure, revenue model, different market...As to Facebook/Twitter....just lol. This reads like a scene from Silicon Valley.

There are several entrepreneurs I know that have been successful running multiple types of businesses. I know for instance, solo attorneys that run successful businesses completely unrelated to law, because they have good business acumen. And they would parrot my opinion on this. I know plenty of people that own several types of successful businesses, from Doctor's offices, to real estate investments, the stock market, to retail businesses.

Also yes - plenty of people in the Silicon Valley risk comfortable, high paying jobs to start a business. I know plenty of people that have risked far more than just 6 digits and benefits.

Your post is actually hilarious. But you do you, and keep on believing what you want to believe. I actually prefer people with your mentality, it makes it easier for the rest of us to make money.

OP, most of this thread is a waste of your time. I'm guessing the majority of people here who have replied to you aside from AVBucks4239 and I have never dabbled in any type of start-up or business endeavor. You can tell from their mentality. If you want some good resources that may help with your research, feel free to PM me.

I spent several years before law school working with SV startups. I'm familiar with like...."entrepreneurship" as you describe it. This is extremely different.

Silicon Valley is a totally different animal than law. When you launch a startup with VC money, your risk-reward is asymmetrical. If you fail, you lose your time, and salary (but usually you're still taking a salary). But mostly you're losing like, some VC's money. They're the ones paying for your electricity, your engineers' salaries, etc. If you succeed, you're worth potentially hundreds of millions of dollars. So even if you only have a 10% chance of success, it's probably worth it, risk adjusted. The payoff curve is basically an option: the downside is capped at a couple hundred grand of foregone salary, the upside is potentially unlimited. And "failed startup CEO" doesn't really carry a stigma in Palo Alto anyway. So you're still employable at a Google or whatever.

None of that is true of a lawyer hanging up a shack. OP will be eating all of the costs himself: his/her downside isn't capped. The foregone salary is material. There's not really a possibility of returning to his/her old job several years from now, because s/he's practicing a non-transferable area of law and frankly, people who are used to being their own boss aren't viewed as great employees in hierarchical law firms. So the career risk is massive. You'll probably fail--the skills necessary for being a good BigLaw junior lawyer are not at all like the ones necessary for starting a high-volume DUI practice. And then what's the upside? It's not a jillion dollars. It's based on your own time. it doesn't scale. And there are *already people who do DUI work. It's not like this is some undiscovered market.

I understand the sort of contrarian like, "oh, take risks! be your own boss! entrepreneurship" impulse you have. And if you *have clients you're taking with you*, I completely understand why say, Robbie Kaplan would go "fuck it, I'm starting my own law firm." But in *this case*...just...the math, the industry, OP's background, nothing makes sense.

^This 100%. Just wanted to add that OP also needs to seriously look at why a lot of these solo practitioners are financially successful. I grew up in Southern California and knew a guy in HS/College that was the son of a financially successful criminal defense lawyer. The firm was founded by the kid’s grandfather and they advertised so much that the firm was basically a household name in my area. When your clientele are regular people who don’t know what to look for in a defense attorney, they’re probably going to go with the guy that they’ve heard of before-I.e people with long standing roots in the community that have a big enough advertising budget to generate significant name ID.

Of course this is purely anecdotal. But I suspect if a winning business model exists for a solo criminal defense practice, it looks something like the one I mentioned above.

[AVBucks4239]

I keep debating whether to dip my toe in this thread, because I've said what I've said, and not much is different, but I can't help but be irked by non-solo attorneys sitting here telling OP (and probably hundreds of passive readers) advice about being a solo attorney. I mean, I rarely go in big law threads and give big law advice (unless its relateable to my experience at a 25 lawyer firm), so I don't know why so many people here are giving OP advice when they have no experience on the matter.

First, let's back up. This was OP's initial inquiry:

What sort of opportunities are there for this kind of criminal defense? Is it mostly a solo practice type thing? If so, how much and what type of experience would someone need to hang a shingle?

This only turned into a "CAN I BE THE KING OF DUI'S???" circle jerk when someone NOT THE OP used that phrase. OP clearly envisioned a broader criminal defense practice, only to be incessantly drowned out by non-solos about how you simply can't be a DUI KING, which is not what OP asked anyway.

Since then there has been other misinformation and bad advice. The highlights are as follows:

Regarding learning from other businesses, while I agree other solos are great resources, I get advice from my corporate clients all the time. My best client is in the home construction business and he has arguably been my best mentor regarding growing my business. He's helped me with a ton of issues -- When should you hire additional help? When is it time to scale up and improve your office? Should you bring on family to help? How reliant should you be on technology? What areas should you not give into your customer demands and stick to your guns about your services? He's been an invaluable resource on these issues. I actually just bought and mailed him a book, and we are great friends at this point because we talk business more than we talk about his company's legal BS.

Regarding scaleability, I strongly beg to differ and would state that a specialty practice is especially apt for scaling into a thriving business model. Practice for 1-2 years and you will have almost every motion you will need. Then you can create a mini-supplement from this that can be given to an associate. OP could also start a criminal law blog (or DUI blog if that's what he wants) and post every other day on all his social media accounts. My own experience indicates that people find you on Google, social media, or by referral -- so do a good job in your business and with your website and you WILL get clients. Get one client off and he will be your client for life, and he will refer five other clients to you.

Regarding future employment, I have had more interviews in the year I've been on my own than the rest of my career combined. I actually just had a quasi-interview for lunch today after having a hearing with this attorney last week. I've also heard rumblings that my original firm is going to make me an offer to come back within this year. Sure, you might not land back at big law, but you will not get thrown into the ether for going out on your own.

Most importantly, and sorry for being repetitive, but if you have a plan and desire to make it work, and a decent amount of financial common sense, IT WILL WORK OUT. I honestly believe the only way you don't make it is because you are a financial moron who takes on way too many expenses. Read the articles about solo failures and they almost all inevitably have $10,000 in monthly overhead. It's so dumb it hurts. You should be able to start a practice for about $1,500 TOTAL. You should be able to have monthly expenses below $500-750. You should be able to do criminal appointment work, local appearance counsel work, remote attorney work, guardian ad litem, etc., and clear a nice profit (probably a minimum of $3,000-4,000 a month starting out, then $7,000-8,000 within six months or so, and then the world is your oyster after that).

Probably going to bow out at this point, but OP, if you have any questions, feel free to PM me.

[LBJ's Hair]

I keep debating whether to dip my toe in this thread, because I've said what I've said, and not much is different, but I can't help but be irked by non-solo attorneys sitting here telling OP (and probably hundreds of passive readers) advice about being a solo attorney. I mean, I rarely go in big law threads and give big law advice (unless its relateable to my experience at a 25 lawyer firm), so I don't know why so many people here are giving OP advice when they have no experience on the matter.

First, let's back up. This was OP's initial inquiry:

What sort of opportunities are there for this kind of criminal defense? Is it mostly a solo practice type thing? If so, how much and what type of experience would someone need to hang a shingle?

This only turned into a "CAN I BE THE KING OF DUI'S???" circle jerk when someone NOT THE OP used that phrase. OP clearly envisioned a broader criminal defense practice, only to be incessantly drowned out by non-solos about how you simply can't be a DUI KING, which is not what OP asked anyway.

Since then there has been other misinformation and bad advice. The highlights are as follows:

Regarding learning from other businesses, while I agree other solos are great resources, I get advice from my corporate clients all the time. My best client is in the home construction business and he has arguably been my best mentor regarding growing my business. He's helped me with a ton of issues -- When should you hire additional help? When is it time to scale up and improve your office? Should you bring on family to help? How reliant should you be on technology? What areas should you not give into your customer demands and stick to your guns about your services? He's been an invaluable resource on these issues. I actually just bought and mailed him a book, and we are great friends at this point because we talk business more than we talk about his company's legal BS.

Regarding scaleability, I strongly beg to differ and would state that a specialty practice is especially apt for scaling into a thriving business model. Practice for 1-2 years and you will have almost every motion you will need. Then you can create a mini-supplement from this that can be given to an associate. OP could also start a criminal law blog (or DUI blog if that's what he wants) and post every other day on all his social media accounts. My own experience indicates that people find you on Google, social media, or by referral -- so do a good job in your business and with your website and you WILL get clients. Get one client off and he will be your client for life, and he will refer five other clients to you.

Regarding future employment, I have had more interviews in the year I've been on my own than the rest of my career combined. I actually just had a quasi-interview for lunch today after having a hearing with this attorney last week. I've also heard rumblings that my original firm is going to make me an offer to come back within this year. Sure, you might not land back at big law, but you will not get thrown into the ether for going out on your own.

Most importantly, and sorry for being repetitive, but if you have a plan and desire to make it work, and a decent amount of financial common sense, IT WILL WORK OUT. I honestly believe the only way you don't make it is because you are a financial moron who takes on way too many expenses. Read the articles about solo failures and they almost all inevitably have $10,000 in monthly overhead. It's so dumb it hurts. You should be able to start a practice for about $1,500 TOTAL. You should be able to have monthly expenses below $500-750. You should be able to do criminal appointment work, local appearance counsel work, remote attorney work, guardian ad litem, etc., and clear a nice profit (probably a minimum of $3,000-4,000 a month starting out, then $7,000-8,000 within six months or so, and then the world is your oyster after that).

Probably going to bow out at this point, but OP, if you have any questions, feel free to PM me.

I think it's awesome that you succeeded, but the average solo is not pulling $8K a month profit 6 months into practice. That's just a fantasy world. Here's Brian Leiter: https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2016/week32. He says the average solo makes $50K annually. The ABA report referenced says the median is $140K annually, although Leiter thinks that includes people running law small firms, ie it's not really the same type. OP needs to look at these averages, not the exceptions, because most people aren't exceptional.

If OP wants to start his own firm, he should do it because he wants to be his own boss. Which is a fine reason I guess; we all make career decisions based on things other than $$$$. But given the numbers you've thrown around, you're like Tom Brady telling OP that he can play in the NFL.

[AVBucks4239]

I think it's awesome that you succeeded, but the average solo is not pulling $8K a month profit 6 months into practice. That's just a fantasy world. Here's Brian Leiter: https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2016/week32. He says the average solo makes $50K annually. The ABA report referenced says the median is $140K annually, although Leiter thinks that includes people running law small firms, ie it's not really the same type. OP needs to look at these averages, not the exceptions, because most people aren't exceptional.

If OP wants to start his own firm, he should do it because he wants to be his own boss. Which is a fine reason I guess; we all make career decisions based on things other than $$$$. But given the numbers you've thrown around, you're like Tom Brady telling OP that he can play in the NFL.

The vast majority of solos bringing home $50k profit a year have some combination of (1) way too high of expenses and (2) an unwillingness to do certain work (i.e., the criminal appointment list). Or, as some of my friends do, they only want to make $50k a year, work 25-30 hours a week, and call it a day.

I am an absolute nobody that started out with four clients. It can be done if you work at it and are willing to do some scrub work before your practice really gets on all fours.

[cavalier1138]

I think it's awesome that you succeeded, but the average solo is not pulling $8K a month profit 6 months into practice. That's just a fantasy world. Here's Brian Leiter: https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2016/week32. He says the average solo makes $50K annually. The ABA report referenced says the median is $140K annually, although Leiter thinks that includes people running law small firms, ie it's not really the same type. OP needs to look at these averages, not the exceptions, because most people aren't exceptional.

If OP wants to start his own firm, he should do it because he wants to be his own boss. Which is a fine reason I guess; we all make career decisions based on things other than $$$$. But given the numbers you've thrown around, you're like Tom Brady telling OP that he can play in the NFL.

The vast majority of solos bringing home $50k profit a year have some combination of (1) way too high of expenses and (2) an unwillingness to do certain work (i.e., the criminal appointment list). Or, as some of my friends do, they only want to make $50k a year, work 25-30 hours a week, and call it a day.

I am an absolute nobody that started out with four clients. It can be done if you work at it and are willing to do some scrub work before your practice really gets on all fours.

This reminds me of that experiment with the Monopoly game. They had two people play Monopoly, but they gave one person (at random) a set of advantages. When that person inevitably won, they always believed that it was a deserved win and that the other person could have beaten them if they had the right skills/attributes to succeed in the game. Ultimately, the conclusions from that study were about privilege, but I think it applies generally to people who get lucky and end up on top of any given field.

But your understanding of "How to Succeed in Solo Practice Without Really Trying" is basically the same as the person who insists that biglaw is easily accessible from a T2 school for the students who are willing to "put in the work." It's a dangerous misconception that gets reinforced by the lucky handful that convince themselves that that was what really happened.

[AVBucks4239]

I think it's awesome that you succeeded, but the average solo is not pulling $8K a month profit 6 months into practice. That's just a fantasy world. Here's Brian Leiter: https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2016/week32. He says the average solo makes $50K annually. The ABA report referenced says the median is $140K annually, although Leiter thinks that includes people running law small firms, ie it's not really the same type. OP needs to look at these averages, not the exceptions, because most people aren't exceptional.

If OP wants to start his own firm, he should do it because he wants to be his own boss. Which is a fine reason I guess; we all make career decisions based on things other than $$$$. But given the numbers you've thrown around, you're like Tom Brady telling OP that he can play in the NFL.

The vast majority of solos bringing home $50k profit a year have some combination of (1) way too high of expenses and (2) an unwillingness to do certain work (i.e., the criminal appointment list). Or, as some of my friends do, they only want to make $50k a year, work 25-30 hours a week, and call it a day.

I am an absolute nobody that started out with four clients. It can be done if you work at it and are willing to do some scrub work before your practice really gets on all fours.

This reminds me of that experiment with the Monopoly game. They had two people play Monopoly, but they gave one person (at random) a set of advantages. When that person inevitably won, they always believed that it was a deserved win and that the other person could have beaten them if they had the right skills/attributes to succeed in the game. Ultimately, the conclusions from that study were about privilege, but I think it applies generally to people who get lucky and end up on top of any given field.

But your understanding of "How to Succeed in Solo Practice Without Really Trying" is basically the same as the person who insists that biglaw is easily accessible from a T2 school for the students who are willing to "put in the work." It's a dangerous misconception that gets reinforced by the lucky handful that convince themselves that that was what really happened.

I’m advocating the opposite of “without really trying,” but I’ll bow out.

[lavarman84]

I think it's awesome that you succeeded, but the average solo is not pulling $8K a month profit 6 months into practice. That's just a fantasy world. Here's Brian Leiter: https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2016/week32. He says the average solo makes $50K annually. The ABA report referenced says the median is $140K annually, although Leiter thinks that includes people running law small firms, ie it's not really the same type. OP needs to look at these averages, not the exceptions, because most people aren't exceptional.

If OP wants to start his own firm, he should do it because he wants to be his own boss. Which is a fine reason I guess; we all make career decisions based on things other than $$$$. But given the numbers you've thrown around, you're like Tom Brady telling OP that he can play in the NFL.

The vast majority of solos bringing home $50k profit a year have some combination of (1) way too high of expenses and (2) an unwillingness to do certain work (i.e., the criminal appointment list). Or, as some of my friends do, they only want to make $50k a year, work 25-30 hours a week, and call it a day.

I am an absolute nobody that started out with four clients. It can be done if you work at it and are willing to do some scrub work before your practice really gets on all fours.

This reminds me of that experiment with the Monopoly game. They had two people play Monopoly, but they gave one person (at random) a set of advantages. When that person inevitably won, they always believed that it was a deserved win and that the other person could have beaten them if they had the right skills/attributes to succeed in the game. Ultimately, the conclusions from that study were about privilege, but I think it applies generally to people who get lucky and end up on top of any given field.

But your understanding of "How to Succeed in Solo Practice Without Really Trying" is basically the same as the person who insists that biglaw is easily accessible from a T2 school for the students who are willing to "put in the work." It's a dangerous misconception that gets reinforced by the lucky handful that convince themselves that that was what really happened.

Cav, what experience do you have as a solo attorney? If the answer is none, it's best for you to not lecture the guy who's making a career out of it.

[cavalier1138]

Cav, what experience do you have as a solo attorney? If the answer is none, it's best for you to not lecture the guy who's making a career out of it.

That's like saying anyone who is not Jeff Bezos can't comment on the likelihood of your startup venture becoming Amazon.

The data is available. There's nothing to indicate that the reason solos average $50k a year is due to incompetence or a strong desire to not make more than that. It's survivor bias, pure and simple.

[nixy]

Re: the Leiter post (not actually written by Leiter), that’s an example of profs disagreeing about data and how it should be interpreted. I don’t think it actually is clear or that you can use it to describe/anticipate any given solo’s experience.

Do I think being a solo is easy/a walk in the park? No, but I tend to agree with lavarman that the big lawyers lecturing AVBucks about being a solo is a bit much. The Jeff Bezos/Amazon comment is also just misleading - no one here is claiming that the OP (or AVBucks for that matter) is setting out to be Amazon, or that the only measure of success is you become Amazon. I’m sure AVBucks won’t be offended if I say he’s successful but he’s certainly not the lawyer equivalent of Amazon.

I don’t know how realistic a goal it is *for OP* because I’m not sure that coming out of biglaw is going to be helpful experience, and if they don’t want a “PD salary” I’m not sure how they’d do with the lack of a guaranteed salary/starting out. I tend to agree going to a boutique where they can get more action might make more sense. Or if they’re serious about going solo, moving to a much smaller firm where they will get much more direct experience with both practice and the running a business side of things, as a way to transition.

But that’s become distinct from the larger discussion about solos.

[AVBucks4239]

Do I think being a solo is easy/a walk in the park? No, but I tend to agree with lavarman that the big lawyers lecturing AVBucks about being a solo is a bit much. The Jeff Bezos/Amazon comment is also just misleading - no one here is claiming that the OP (or AVBucks for that matter) is setting out to be Amazon, or that the only measure of success is you become Amazon. I’m sure AVBucks won’t be offended if I say he’s successful but he’s certainly not the lawyer equivalent of Amazon.

This is exactly right. I have no intentions of building a huge mega practice or anything. I just want to do things my own way in terms of how I practice and what cases I take on.

I profited about $55k in eight months last year. My goal this year is to profit about $100k, maybe a little more. That’s nothing crazy, and it’s the $8k/month profit I’m talking about (didn’t pull that number out of thin air).

To be lectured that I had some advantage, I just don’t get it. I started my career on a three month career grant that paid me $2,000 for the whole three months. I worked 55-60 hours a week at a firm making $47k and then $50k a year for 3-4 years. I attempted to work with another solo, but that was a disaster and I was forced to open my own firm well before I had planned.

I had 4 clients at the time, the best of which has paid about $10k so far. I had no great connections and started (and still am) in an office that’s 72 square feet with no windows (moving Sunday!).

Since then, I have appeared as local counsel at over 150 hearings (some of them for $46 for a hearing); I’m on the public defenders list; I’m considering GAL work to get to my profit goal this year; I’ve attended well over 100 networking events and lunches; and now, ultimately, I hve about 25-30 clients, I’m moving to a bigger office, and I’m confident I’ve established a profitable practice.

I’m saying the opposite of it will be easy. I’m saying you will have to do work you didn’t want to do until you establish your practice (I think I’m about a year away), and you will have to be on a much tighter budget than you anticipated. That is not at all saying “it will be easy,” it’s just saying the work is out there if you don’t think you’re above it and are willing to do it.

[lavarman84]

Cav, what experience do you have as a solo attorney? If the answer is none, it's best for you to not lecture the guy who's making a career out of it.

That's like saying anyone who is not Jeff Bezos can't comment on the likelihood of your startup venture becoming Amazon.

The data is available. There's nothing to indicate that the reason solos average $50k a year is due to incompetence or a strong desire to not make more than that. It's survivor bias, pure and simple.

No, it's like saying that you should be quiet when Jeff Bezos is giving somebody advice on the likelihood of that person's startup venture becoming Amazon.

[QContinuum]

Cav, what experience do you have as a solo attorney? If the answer is none, it's best for you to not lecture the guy who's making a career out of it.

That's like saying anyone who is not Jeff Bezos can't comment on the likelihood of your startup venture becoming Amazon.

The data is available. There's nothing to indicate that the reason solos average $50k a year is due to incompetence or a strong desire to not make more than that. It's survivor bias, pure and simple.

No, it's like saying that you should be quiet when Jeff Bezos is giving somebody advice on the likelihood of that person's startup venture becoming Amazon.

If Bezos were, hypothetically, spinning a tale about how all of the failed Silicon Valley startups failed because their founders didn't work hard or weren't motivated to make money, other folks - regardless of their background - would be entirely correct to call out that bad advice.

[lavarman84]

If Bezos were, hypothetically, spinning a tale about how all of the failed Silicon Valley startups failed because their founders didn't work hard or weren't motivated to make money, other folks - regardless of their background - would be entirely correct to call out that bad advice.

If you don't have the background, you shouldn't lecture people who do. You ever had laymen try to lecture you on the law based on their "common sense?" I have. It's pretty damn annoying, and they're almost always wrong. If you have no experience as a solo, don't lecture the guy who does when he gives his take.

You are welcome to post data and make points on that, but don't try to tell the guy with experience what's what. You lack the requisite knowledge. If the guy is dead wrong, odds are somebody with actual experience will correct him. If there's one thing that plagues this board, it's arrogance. This board offers a lot of great info, but some people here also offer bad info at times when they stray too far from their lane.

[QContinuum]

If Bezos were, hypothetically, spinning a tale about how all of the failed Silicon Valley startups failed because their founders didn't work hard or weren't motivated to make money, other folks - regardless of their background - would be entirely correct to call out that bad advice.

If you don't have the background, you shouldn't lecture people who do. You ever had laymen try to lecture you on the law based on their "common sense?" I have. It's pretty damn annoying, and they're almost always wrong. If you have no experience as a solo, don't lecture the guy who does when he gives his take.

The fact that most of us on this forum didn't attend a T4 or unranked law school doesn't disqualify us from advising folks against attending such law schools.

The fact that a man assigned male at birth will never experience pregnancy or childbirth firsthand doesn't disqualify him from becoming an ob/gyn and advising female patients about pregnancy and childbirth.

The fact that a psychiatrist has never had a mental illness doesn't disqualify her from counseling mentally ill patients.

There is no requirement that folks have firsthand experience in a subject in order to be qualified to comment intelligently on that subject. Folks can have firsthand experience and still be wrong (see: a T4 law student encouraging 0Ls to attend their T4). Folks can have zero firsthand experience yet still have the relevant knowledge to comment intelligently.

You are welcome to post data and make points on that, but don't try to tell the guy with experience what's what. You lack the requisite knowledge. If the guy is dead wrong, odds are somebody with actual experience will correct him. If there's one thing that plagues this board, it's arrogance. This board offers a lot of great info, but some people here also offer bad info at times when they stray too far from their lane.

Folks have posted data about solos' average salary. In rebuttal, AVBucks has offered a single data point - his own success - and his opinion that other solos are either incompetent or aren't interested in making more money. People don't need to be solos themselves to spot the gaping holes in that logic.

There are, of course, many things AVBucks - or other solos - can speak to that non-solos can't. How should one select office location, balancing rent and convenience/visibility? How large does the office need to be? How should accounting be handled? Is there a need to hire a secretary? A paralegal? What docketing system is best? How should one make advance contingency plans for an unexpected illness or personal/family emergency? Etc. Those are all things that only someone with solo experience could reasonably speak to.

But solos aren't uniquely placed to speak to the overall solo market. The fact that one is a solo doesn't give him/her a unique perspective into every other solo practitioner's practice.

[PeanutsNJam]

I fail to see what’s so far-fetched about making $8k profit as a solo after 5? years of practice. AVBuvks isn’t telling people they can become millionaires. It’s not like telling someone to go to a T4 and they can get biglaw as long as they network and hustle.

Remember he’s not taking home 8k after tax.

Also, sure, a biglaw associate is qualified to talk about solo work after attending solo attorney school for 4 years and then doing a solo attorney residency for another 3.

[QContinuum]

I fail to see what’s so far-fetched about making $8k profit as a solo after 5? years of practice. AVBuvks isn’t telling people they can become millionaires. It’s not like telling someone to go to a T4 and they can get biglaw as long as they network and hustle.

Remember he’s not taking home 8k after tax.

It's far-fetched because the data - which AVBucks doesn't dispute - indicates that the average solo makes $50k, pre-tax. That makes it unreasonable for the average lawyer considering launching their own solo practice to expect to make $96k.

Of course it's possible to make more than the average. No one disputes this. But TLS' rule has always been to assume average performance.

Also, sure, a biglaw associate is qualified to talk about solo work after attending solo attorney school for 4 years and then doing a solo attorney residency for another 3.

So, in other words, we should stop advising folks against attending T4/unranked law schools until and unless we attend those law schools ourselves and personally experience the struggle to land a legal job?

[PeanutsNJam]

I fail to see what’s so far-fetched about making $8k profit as a solo after 5? years of practice. AVBuvks isn’t telling people they can become millionaires. It’s not like telling someone to go to a T4 and they can get biglaw as long as they network and hustle.

Remember he’s not taking home 8k after tax.

It's far-fetched because the data - which AVBucks doesn't dispute - indicates that the average solo makes $50k, pre-tax. That makes it unreasonable for the average lawyer considering launching their own solo practice to expect to make $96k.

Of course it's possible to make more than the average. No one disputes this. But TLS' rule has always been to assume average performance.

Also, sure, a biglaw associate is qualified to talk about solo work after attending solo attorney school for 4 years and then doing a solo attorney residency for another 3.

So, in other words, we should stop advising folks against attending T4/unranked law schools until and unless we attend those law schools ourselves and personally experience the struggle to land a legal job?

As to your first point, AVBucks already addressed it. His rationale—which nobody here has the data or experience to dispute—is that many solo attorneys have lower profits because they maintain higher overheads. AVBucks sits in like a 72 square foot office? If you’re a solo and rent a bigger office, purchase fancy business cards, and spend more in a variety of ways, it’s easy to see how AVBucks could be near the average revenue while maintaining above average profits.

As to your second point, the amount of data/research/experience required to credibly speak on a certain topic varies by topic. I doubt you’d take my word regarding a medical diagnosis based on my 5 hours of webMD browsing. 5 hours of LST browsing, however, may be sufficient for law school employment advice.

[nixy]

The data that’s been linked here is academics arguing about what numbers mean. I don’t think it can be taken as gospel - there are clearly competing assessments of what solo attorneys make. I don’t think it’s anywhere near as clear cut as the employment stats for law schools.

[dabigchina]

TBH, It sounds like people are talking past each other.

Is it possible for OP to make some kind of living as a solo doing dui/other blue collar lit? Sure, and I think avbucks makes valid points about how to do it.

Is it advisable/prudent from a economic/risk perspective, given op's background? No, almost assuredly not, given his current position. Athough people can argue over the level of risk that he's taking, I don't think anyone can argue that the risk is immaterial.

Would it be a mistake for OP to go all in on it? Nobody can say for sure. Maybe he will love churning out dui/blue collar lit cases for maybe 100k pre-tax, maybe he won't. Whether it's worth the risk for him is his call.

Plus, I'm pretty sure OP checked out of the thread somewhere around post 12.

[lavarman84]

If Bezos were, hypothetically, spinning a tale about how all of the failed Silicon Valley startups failed because their founders didn't work hard or weren't motivated to make money, other folks - regardless of their background - would be entirely correct to call out that bad advice.

If you don't have the background, you shouldn't lecture people who do. You ever had laymen try to lecture you on the law based on their "common sense?" I have. It's pretty damn annoying, and they're almost always wrong. If you have no experience as a solo, don't lecture the guy who does when he gives his take.

The fact that most of us on this forum didn't attend a T4 or unranked law school doesn't disqualify us from advising folks against attending such law schools.

The fact that a man assigned male at birth will never experience pregnancy or childbirth firsthand doesn't disqualify him from becoming an ob/gyn and advising female patients about pregnancy and childbirth.

The fact that a psychiatrist has never had a mental illness doesn't disqualify her from counseling mentally ill patients.

There is no requirement that folks have firsthand experience in a subject in order to be qualified to comment intelligently on that subject. Folks can have firsthand experience and still be wrong (see: a T4 law student encouraging 0Ls to attend their T4). Folks can have zero firsthand experience yet still have the relevant knowledge to comment intelligently.

You are welcome to post data and make points on that, but don't try to tell the guy with experience what's what. You lack the requisite knowledge. If the guy is dead wrong, odds are somebody with actual experience will correct him. If there's one thing that plagues this board, it's arrogance. This board offers a lot of great info, but some people here also offer bad info at times when they stray too far from their lane.

Folks have posted data about solos' average salary. In rebuttal, AVBucks has offered a single data point - his own success - and his opinion that other solos are either incompetent or aren't interested in making more money. People don't need to be solos themselves to spot the gaping holes in that logic.

There are, of course, many things AVBucks - or other solos - can speak to that non-solos can't. How should one select office location, balancing rent and convenience/visibility? How large does the office need to be? How should accounting be handled? Is there a need to hire a secretary? A paralegal? What docketing system is best? How should one make advance contingency plans for an unexpected illness or personal/family emergency? Etc. Those are all things that only someone with solo experience could reasonably speak to.

But solos aren't uniquely placed to speak to the overall solo market. The fact that one is a solo doesn't give him/her a unique perspective into every other solo practitioner's practice.

Those are terrible analogies, except for the law school one. Of course, the data on law schools is a lot more clear and easier to analyze. Even then, some of the people on this site will chime in with dumbass advice from time to time because they have no experience and are relying solely on the numbers. Simply put, you're out of your lane here.

[QContinuum]

Those are terrible analogies, except for the law school one. Of course, the data on law schools is a lot more clear and easier to analyze. Even then, some of the people on this site will chime in with dumbass advice from time to time because they have no experience and are relying solely on the numbers.

So your position is that anyone who doesn't attend a T4 law school has no business giving advice re: whether attending a T4 law school is a good idea? And that the non-T4 alumni among us who give such advice are "dumbasses"?

Simply put, you're out of your lane here.

You're entitled to view a single solo's opinion about every other solo practitioner in the country as gospel. I think putting that much trust in any single poster is foolish and ill-advised, and I decline to do so.

[FND]

Personally, I think it would get old rather fast. There are only so many possible defenses for DUIs, and only so many fact patterns. I imagine cases would start blurring together after a while.

That's a great point and I entirely agree. How many variations could there possibly be? There's a potential argument that there was no valid reason for the car to be stopped in the first place - the driver wasn't weaving or driving erratically, and it wasn't a general checkpoint. So the stop was a 4A violation and the DUI needs to be tossed. Maybe the defense is that the particular BAC test/device used was unreliable (this is probably the single most typical defense), so there's insufficient evidence that the driver was actually drunk. Or maybe the driver was concededly drunk, but was legitimately in fear of his life and had no choice but to drive drunk to escape his assailants. I mean, that's about it as far as defenses go. There aren't really many nuances.

I'd like to counter this. I eventually transitioned out of my old life and now predominantly do estate planning for farmers. Sure, it's not the most exciting field, and the work itself is really pedestrian, but I enjoy it. A lot of it is variations on a theme, but I love the stories.

It's not for everybody, but for me it's perfect. If OP has a niche he or she thinks he/she will love, go for it.