$0 Debt JD...Would You Have Changed Focus? Forum

[MT Cicero]

I'm basically wondering if you would've changed your job/career focus if you knew going into law school that you were debt free at graduation. So, you went to/are attending your current school with full tuition scholly & living stipend. How many would still shoot for V5/10/20, firms with 100+, public service, etc.? Would more of you try to stay in secondary markets if that's where you are from?

[northwood]

I'm basically wondering if you would've changed your job/career focus if you knew going into law school that you were debt free at graduation. So, you went to/are attending your current school with full tuition scholly & living stipend. How many would still shoot for V5/10/20, firms with 100+, public service, etc.? Would more of you try to stay in secondary markets if that's where you are from?

Not necessarily. I would have kept myself open to do different things, and I would have been a whole lot less stressed about finding a job if I had a full scholarship and living stipend. I would still shoot for the moon, but rest assured knowing that if it wasn't working out, I could spend more time working on my exit strategy/ backup plan and not have to worry about debt repayment.

[twenty 8]

I leveraged my grades for a free ride (hometown, no COL to speak of). I read where others on this site have also said no to T14/Tier-1 stickers. They, like myself, are now at great firms and do not owe anyone a dime. Can something go sideways, chit yes, but not as crazy sideways as owing 200,000 and working at a T14 SFJ.

The formula is simple. Get a T-14 GPA/LSAT score then leverage it for a free ride. Not many other ways to escape this debt intense system. If your scores sux, your debt will suck too.

I have no desire to work at a northern sweatshop (I couldn't care less about their V-whatever ranking). I'm happy at a large well-paying firm, but if that went pooof I could still lateral over to a $60K job because…..u got it…..zero debt.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

A lot of actual attorneys--including T14 graduates--would have gone to law school on a full ride at a worse school if they could do it again. Attending law school on a full ride is a great deal for any humanities major (but as above poster said it CAN go wrong--if you have bad grades you will definitely not get big law and may not even have a job).

[typ3]

Wife and I both went to T30 on fulls and both turned down t-14 partials. We will graduate with 0 debt in a week (both did UG's on full schollys / presidential schollys as well) and are both turning down boutique/big law mpls/chi 135k and 150k were our two highest individual offers each for in house positions in the Dakotas with decent sized companies (26,000 employees, 2.25bil is larger of the two other is middle market) Pay is lower slightly but benefits / COL more than make up for it along with advancement outside of firm politics. Using NALP buying power index like 60k in our state = 160k in NYC so buying power is about 640k NYC. Don't know if this answers any of OP's questions but a lot of the larger corps in Dakotas have inhouse counsel that are former skadden/sidley associates fwiw. Also no state or local income tax is hella awesome.

[Danger Zone]

Wife and I both went to T30 on fulls and both turned down t-14 partials. We will graduate with 0 debt in a week (both did UG's on full schollys / presidential schollys as well) and are both turning down boutique/big law mpls/chi 135k and 150k were our two highest individual offers each for in house positions in the Dakotas with decent sized companies (26,000 employees, 2.25bil is larger of the two other is middle market) Pay is lower slightly but benefits / COL more than make up for it along with advancement outside of firm politics. Using NALP buying power index like 60k in our state = 160k in NYC so buying power is about 640k NYC. Don't know if this answers any of OP's questions but a lot of the larger corps in Dakotas have inhouse counsel that are former skadden/sidley associates fwiw. Also no state or local income tax is hella awesome.

Ugh.

[NYSprague]

No. I have no debt but I wanted to work in NYC where I grew up. I wanted to work on the biggest, most complex transactions for experience and, also, I was a prestige whore to a certain extent. Also, I am earning and saving money so when I get pushed out, I can do whatever I want, including leaving law for something else. Also, I have posted the negatives of biglaw, but I'm ok with it for a few more years.

I wouldn't move to the Dakotas for a million dollars. All my life is in NYC. Growing up here may make a big difference in the decision process.

(Edit: I'm not sure what the above poster means about firm politics, everyone in my firm is lockstep. I'm good with that. If they mean making partner, that has always been dependent on many factors.)

Oh maybe this didn't apply to me, I went to a T6 school but it wasn't all scholarship. I did live at home which made a huge difference in the cost and I had some money my Dad left me. But I have no debt and still did biglaw.

[lecsa]

No. I have no debt but I wanted to work in NYC where I grew up. I wanted to work on the biggest, most complex transactions for experience and, also, I was a prestige whore to a certain extent. Also, I am earning and saving money so when I get pushed out, I can do whatever I want, including leaving law for something else. Also, I have posted the negatives of biglaw, but I'm ok with it for a few more years.

I wouldn't move to the Dakotas for a million dollars. All my life is in NYC. Growing up here may make a big difference in the decision process.

(Edit: I'm not sure what the above poster means about firm politics, everyone in my firm is lockstep. I'm good with that. If they mean making partner, that has always been dependent on many factors.)

Oh maybe this didn't apply to me, I went to a T6 school but it wasn't all scholarship. I did live at home which made a huge difference in the cost and I had some money my Dad left me. But I have no debt and still did biglaw.

lol, "biggest, most complex transactions" means more bullshit paperwork.

I don't care what anyone says, but all biglaw work (except pro bono) is boring.

As for me, I think I might have still done biglaw, but I would have tried a lot less at work and not cared as much about it.

If I could turn back time completely, I don't think I'd have gone to law school in the first place (even if it's free).

As for living in NYC on a biglaw salary - you're living in a box and paying 3k a month. I grew up in the suburbs and I find it funny that people think this is "good living." The main things to do in NYC are to shop and "culture" (theater, etc.). Too bad most of the time you're working and can't go there. And too bad most of these shops you can get anywhere else in the country.

Also the high line - That's the epitome of "outdoor" in NYC, along with Central Park. It's almost laughable to me.

My theory is that unless you're legitimately wealthy (at least 10mm net worth), you're going to live like a poor person in NYC. If you grew up in the suburbs you know what I mean - only trashy, poor people live in apartments. In NYC, everyone does, and often in worse apartments than you find elsewhere in the country.

[NYSprague]

No. I have no debt but I wanted to work in NYC where I grew up. I wanted to work on the biggest, most complex transactions for experience and, also, I was a prestige whore to a certain extent. Also, I am earning and saving money so when I get pushed out, I can do whatever I want, including leaving law for something else. Also, I have posted the negatives of biglaw, but I'm ok with it for a few more years.

I wouldn't move to the Dakotas for a million dollars. All my life is in NYC. Growing up here may make a big difference in the decision process.

(Edit: I'm not sure what the above poster means about firm politics, everyone in my firm is lockstep. I'm good with that. If they mean making partner, that has always been dependent on many factors.)

Oh maybe this didn't apply to me, I went to a T6 school but it wasn't all scholarship. I did live at home which made a huge difference in the cost and I had some money my Dad left me. But I have no debt and still did biglaw.

lol, "biggest, most complex transactions" means more bullshit paperwork.

I don't care what anyone says, but all biglaw work (except pro bono) is boring.

As for me, I think I might have still done biglaw, but I would have tried a lot less at work and not cared as much about it.

If I could turn back time completely, I don't think I'd have gone to law school in the first place (even if it's free).

As for living in NYC on a biglaw salary - you're living in a box and paying 3k a month. I grew up in the suburbs and I find it funny that people think this is "good living." The main things to do in NYC are to shop and "culture" (theater, etc.). Too bad most of the time you're working and can't go there. And too bad most of these shops you can get anywhere else in the country.

Also the high line - That's the epitome of "outdoor" in NYC, along with Central Park. It's almost laughable to me.

My theory is that unless you're legitimately wealthy (at least 10mm net worth), you're going to live like a poor person in NYC. If you grew up in the suburbs you know what I mean - only trashy, poor people live in apartments. In NYC, everyone does, and often in worse apartments than you find elsewhere in the country.

Maybe you should try Westchester? Staten Island and Queens also have suburbs. Sorry you are so miserable.

OP asked about my reasons while in school. I wouldn't have borrowed money to go to law school, but I didn't have to, so, maybe I would go again. I doubt I will stay in law forever.

[cotiger]

My theory is that unless you're legitimately wealthy (at least 10mm net worth), you're going to live like a poor person in NYC. If you grew up in the suburbs you know what I mean - only trashy, poor people live in apartments..

Lol wut.

Yikes, you need to get out of the city dude.

Also an attitude adjustment.

[northwood]

No. I have no debt but I wanted to work in NYC where I grew up. I wanted to work on the biggest, most complex transactions for experience and, also, I was a prestige whore to a certain extent. Also, I am earning and saving money so when I get pushed out, I can do whatever I want, including leaving law for something else. Also, I have posted the negatives of biglaw, but I'm ok with it for a few more years.

I wouldn't move to the Dakotas for a million dollars. All my life is in NYC. Growing up here may make a big difference in the decision process.

(Edit: I'm not sure what the above poster means about firm politics, everyone in my firm is lockstep. I'm good with that. If they mean making partner, that has always been dependent on many factors.)

Oh maybe this didn't apply to me, I went to a T6 school but it wasn't all scholarship. I did live at home which made a huge difference in the cost and I had some money my Dad left me. But I have no debt and still did biglaw.

lol, "biggest, most complex transactions" means more bullshit paperwork.

I don't care what anyone says, but all biglaw work (except pro bono) is boring.

As for me, I think I might have still done biglaw, but I would have tried a lot less at work and not cared as much about it.

If I could turn back time completely, I don't think I'd have gone to law school in the first place (even if it's free).

As for living in NYC on a biglaw salary - you're living in a box and paying 3k a month. I grew up in the suburbs and I find it funny that people think this is "good living." The main things to do in NYC are to shop and "culture" (theater, etc.). Too bad most of the time you're working and can't go there. And too bad most of these shops you can get anywhere else in the country.

Also the high line - That's the epitome of "outdoor" in NYC, along with Central Park. It's almost laughable to me.


My theory is that unless you're legitimately wealthy (at least 10mm net worth), you're going to live like a poor person in NYC. If you grew up in the suburbs you know what I mean - only trashy, poor people live in apartments. In NYC, everyone does, and often in worse apartments than you find elsewhere in the country.

Different strokes for different folks. What works for you may not work for others. Parts of what is today NYC was once suburbia, full of the lawns and things that you like. If everyone moved into your suburb, it would become a large metropolitan city, possibly very similar to NYC, and you would either have to move away, or move into an apartment.

[MT Cicero]

No. I have no debt but I wanted to work in NYC where I grew up. I wanted to work on the biggest, most complex transactions for experience and, also, I was a prestige whore to a certain extent. Also, I am earning and saving money so when I get pushed out, I can do whatever I want, including leaving law for something else. Also, I have posted the negatives of biglaw, but I'm ok with it for a few more years.

I wouldn't move to the Dakotas for a million dollars. All my life is in NYC. Growing up here may make a big difference in the decision process.

(Edit: I'm not sure what the above poster means about firm politics, everyone in my firm is lockstep. I'm good with that. If they mean making partner, that has always been dependent on many factors.)

Oh maybe this didn't apply to me, I went to a T6 school but it wasn't all scholarship. I did live at home which made a huge difference in the cost and I had some money my Dad left me. But I have no debt and still did biglaw.

No, it applies to you. This is what I was looking for, along with the other examples. I often hear that biglaw is the only way to service the giant debt that law school produces, which makes sense. But I wanted to know if folks went to school completely free, would they still look for biglaw primarily?

I'm especially looking for T-14 types who have a pretty good shot at biglaw going in. Someone comes up to you the summer before you start and says everything is covered. Would anyone have gunned hard for DA, PD, 50-person firm in medium-sized metro, etc.? Or more broadly, if an entire class of law school students at every school across the country got free school for all 3 years, would the same people end up in the same jobs (with less debt stress being the main difference)?

I'm curious because I'll be in the fortunate position to attend law school for very close to free (VA benefits). So, as a clueless 0L, I'd just like to hear how you might've gone about things differently if given the option.

Thanks for the responses so far!

[spleenworship]

No. I'd still be going PD. Only difference is that I could buy a car with less than 6-figure miles on it and maybe get some new flooring put in my house.

[NYSprague]

No. I have no debt but I wanted to work in NYC where I grew up. I wanted to work on the biggest, most complex transactions for experience and, also, I was a prestige whore to a certain extent. Also, I am earning and saving money so when I get pushed out, I can do whatever I want, including leaving law for something else. Also, I have posted the negatives of biglaw, but I'm ok with it for a few more years.

I wouldn't move to the Dakotas for a million dollars. All my life is in NYC. Growing up here may make a big difference in the decision process.

(Edit: I'm not sure what the above poster means about firm politics, everyone in my firm is lockstep. I'm good with that. If they mean making partner, that has always been dependent on many factors.)

Oh maybe this didn't apply to me, I went to a T6 school but it wasn't all scholarship. I did live at home which made a huge difference in the cost and I had some money my Dad left me. But I have no debt and still did biglaw.

No, it applies to you. This is what I was looking for, along with the other examples. I often hear that biglaw is the only way to service the giant debt that law school produces, which makes sense. But I wanted to know if folks went to school completely free, would they still look for biglaw primarily?

I'm especially looking for T-14 types who have a pretty good shot at biglaw going in. Someone comes up to you the summer before you start and says everything is covered. Would anyone have gunned hard for DA, PD, 50-person firm in medium-sized metro, etc.? Or more broadly, if an entire class of law school students at every school across the country got free school for all 3 years, would the same people end up in the same jobs (with less debt stress being the main difference)?

I'm curious because I'll be in the fortunate position to attend law school for very close to free (VA benefits). So, as a clueless 0L, I'd just like to hear how you might've gone about things differently if given the option.

Thanks for the responses so far!

I'm not a litigator so most of those jobs don't apply. I live in New York and moving would not have improved my life. I would hesitate before recommending big law to anyone who can come up with a better plan.

[typ3]

No. I have no debt but I wanted to work in NYC where I grew up. I wanted to work on the biggest, most complex transactions for experience and, also, I was a prestige whore to a certain extent. Also, I am earning and saving money so when I get pushed out, I can do whatever I want, including leaving law for something else. Also, I have posted the negatives of biglaw, but I'm ok with it for a few more years.

I wouldn't move to the Dakotas for a million dollars. All my life is in NYC. Growing up here may make a big difference in the decision process.

(Edit: I'm not sure what the above poster means about firm politics, everyone in my firm is lockstep. I'm good with that. If they mean making partner, that has always been dependent on many factors.)

Oh maybe this didn't apply to me, I went to a T6 school but it wasn't all scholarship. I did live at home which made a huge difference in the cost and I had some money my Dad left me. But I have no debt and still did biglaw.

Lol this is typical big city talk about the, 'Dakotas' check out where all the banking assets are housed and where the trust hot spot is atm hint it's one of the Dakotas. You can get a large salary in the Dakotas and buy a condo in NYC if you want and visit the city on the weekends and take a red eye out since everything is dirt cheap if you're really inclined. Numerous people I know with 8-9 fig net worths do this as do a lot of people who work on the street but legally earn their $ through corp entities in South Dakota for the tax reasons. Just because you 'move' somewhere doesn't mean you stay there full time when you have money rolling in. Also $10mm networth I don't think is rich. How could that be rich in NYC when people don't even consider that rich anymore in the Midwest? O.o The current bar is probably closer to $25mm.

[lecsa]

No. I have no debt but I wanted to work in NYC where I grew up. I wanted to work on the biggest, most complex transactions for experience and, also, I was a prestige whore to a certain extent. Also, I am earning and saving money so when I get pushed out, I can do whatever I want, including leaving law for something else. Also, I have posted the negatives of biglaw, but I'm ok with it for a few more years.

I wouldn't move to the Dakotas for a million dollars. All my life is in NYC. Growing up here may make a big difference in the decision process.

(Edit: I'm not sure what the above poster means about firm politics, everyone in my firm is lockstep. I'm good with that. If they mean making partner, that has always been dependent on many factors.)

Oh maybe this didn't apply to me, I went to a T6 school but it wasn't all scholarship. I did live at home which made a huge difference in the cost and I had some money my Dad left me. But I have no debt and still did biglaw.

Lol this is typical big city talk about the, 'Dakotas' check out where all the banking assets are housed and where the trust hot spot is atm hint it's one of the Dakotas. You can get a large salary in the Dakotas and buy a condo in NYC if you want and visit the city on the weekends and take a red eye out since everything is dirt cheap if you're really inclined. Numerous people I know with 8-9 fig net worths do this as do a lot of people who work on the street but legally earn their $ through corp entities in South Dakota for the tax reasons. Just because you 'move' somewhere doesn't mean you stay there full time when you have money rolling in. Also $10mm networth I don't think is rich. How could that be rich in NYC when people don't even consider that rich anymore in the Midwest? O.o The current bar is probably closer to $25mm.

I don't know if you're kidding or not, but 10mm net worth is still well in the top 1% of the US.

This article from 2012 says that the top 1% of U.S. households have a net worth of $6.8 million.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/12/wh ... g+Picture)

I'd be happy with 10mm invested with an income stream of 250k+ a year. So maybe I meant 10mm liquid (and not houses, etc.).

I grew up in an area where houses average 1mm+ and I don't consider myself or my family rich.

[NYSprague]

No. I have no debt but I wanted to work in NYC where I grew up. I wanted to work on the biggest, most complex transactions for experience and, also, I was a prestige whore to a certain extent. Also, I am earning and saving money so when I get pushed out, I can do whatever I want, including leaving law for something else. Also, I have posted the negatives of biglaw, but I'm ok with it for a few more years.

I wouldn't move to the Dakotas for a million dollars. All my life is in NYC. Growing up here may make a big difference in the decision process.

(Edit: I'm not sure what the above poster means about firm politics, everyone in my firm is lockstep. I'm good with that. If they mean making partner, that has always been dependent on many factors.)

Oh maybe this didn't apply to me, I went to a T6 school but it wasn't all scholarship. I did live at home which made a huge difference in the cost and I had some money my Dad left me. But I have no debt and still did biglaw.

Lol this is typical big city talk about the, 'Dakotas' check out where all the banking assets are housed and where the trust hot spot is atm hint it's one of the Dakotas. You can get a large salary in the Dakotas and buy a condo in NYC if you want and visit the city on the weekends and take a red eye out since everything is dirt cheap if you're really inclined. Numerous people I know with 8-9 fig net worths do this as do a lot of people who work on the street but legally earn their $ through corp entities in South Dakota for the tax reasons. Just because you 'move' somewhere doesn't mean you stay there full time when you have money rolling in. Also $10mm networth I don't think is rich. How could that be rich in NYC when people don't even consider that rich anymore in the Midwest? O.o The current bar is probably closer to $25mm.

You missed my main point which is that NYC is my home. Being fucking rich living away from the people I care about is not at all important to me. I am certain if I was from the Dakotas I would prefer to be near there and be near my family and friends.

I mentioned the Dakotas because someone in this thread is moving there, not because I don't respect that choice. I was explaining my own thought.

I didn't go to law school to get rich. I don't expect to be rich, however, I don't have debt which allows me to save and invest, so I will have money when I leave biglaw. I'm not concerned with a $10 million or $25 million net worth, if I was I would have done something else.

[typ3]

Completely serious. In 2012 it took 8.4mm to have a networth in the Top 1% (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/ ... blogs&_r=0).

I am sure that with the way the market has been last 2 years and interest rates so low that it is now probably more like $11-13mm. However, even a net worth in this area you are not going to be considered rich among the 1% at all.

[A. Nony Mouse]

So being in the top 1% isn't enough to be rich - the 1% has to think you're rich? That's pretty fucking disgusting.

[typ3]

So being in the top 1% isn't enough to be rich - the 1% has to think you're rich? That's pretty fucking disgusting.

Who said the higher echelons of society aren't any different than high school?

You think people like Warren Buffet continue to acquire at his age for any other reason than to elephant bump and the need to continually garner the attention of and impress his peers?

Put simply, if a tree in the forest falls does it make a sound? Same thinking.

[Theopliske8711]

Also $10mm networth I don't think is rich. How could that be rich in NYC when people don't even consider that rich anymore in the Midwest? O.o The current bar is probably closer to $25mm.

Not sure if it's just TLS OR something inherently wrong with modern America.

[typ3]

Also $10mm networth I don't think is rich. How could that be rich in NYC when people don't even consider that rich anymore in the Midwest? O.o The current bar is probably closer to $25mm.

Not sure if it's just TLS OR something inherently wrong with modern America.

Both.

[A. Nony Mouse]

So being in the top 1% isn't enough to be rich - the 1% has to think you're rich? That's pretty fucking disgusting.

Who said the higher echelons of society aren't any different than high school?

You think people like Warren Buffet continue to acquire at his age for any other reason than to elephant bump and the need to continually garner the attention of and impress his peers?

Put simply, if a tree in the forest falls does it make a sound? Same thinking.

I just meant you have an awfully narrow definition of rich.

[typ3]

So being in the top 1% isn't enough to be rich - the 1% has to think you're rich? That's pretty fucking disgusting.

Who said the higher echelons of society aren't any different than high school?

You think people like Warren Buffet continue to acquire at his age for any other reason than to elephant bump and the need to continually garner the attention of and impress his peers?

Put simply, if a tree in the forest falls does it make a sound? Same thinking.

I just meant you have an awfully narrow definition of rich.

I suppose. To tease this out further, there is a difference between the rich and the wealthy.

[lecsa]

So being in the top 1% isn't enough to be rich - the 1% has to think you're rich? That's pretty fucking disgusting.

Who said the higher echelons of society aren't any different than high school?

You think people like Warren Buffet continue to acquire at his age for any other reason than to elephant bump and the need to continually garner the attention of and impress his peers?

Put simply, if a tree in the forest falls does it make a sound? Same thinking.

I just meant you have an awfully narrow definition of rich.

I suppose. To tease this out further, there is a difference between the rich and the wealthy.

If you're not old money or super rich, I don't even understand how you can have such a narrow perception of being rich.

Having 10mm sounds pretty sweet to me. I think a lot of people have 1-2 mm net worth (especially if you're from an expensive place) but only the top 1% or so in the country have 10mm. With 10mm liquid invested you can live a very comfortable life forever and make more money than most biglawyers annually.