Top Law Schools

Those of you who are working in JD "Advantage" positions, could you give a general description of what you do?do you like the work you are doing? did you self select into the position or were you forced into it after striking out?

thomch05 wrote:Those of you who are working in JD "Advantage" positions, could you give a general description of what you do?do you like the work you are doing? did you self select into the position or were you forced into it after striking out?

i'd like to know this too

Roughly speaking:

For non-T14 schools, "JD advantage" is a euphemism for jobs that you could have probably gotten before law school without a law degree but that somehow may at some point use your JD knowledge.

For T14 schools, JD advantage jobs include high-end consulting work and other (generally high-paying) business-type jobs that may legitimately use your JD knowledge.

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Roughly speaking:

For non-T14 schools, "JD advantage" is a euphemism for jobs that you could have probably gotten before law school without a law degree but that somehow may at some point use your JD knowledge.

For T14 schools, JD advantage jobs include high-end consulting work and other (generally high-paying) business-type jobs that may legitimately use your JD knowledge.

What about from schools like UCLA,Vandy,USC,?

One of my friends works at a major bank in their trust department. It's basically customer service and you tell people when they can or can't have money depending on if it meets the trust requirements i.e. I want to buy a new car can I have $20,000 from the trust when the trust says you get college tuition expenses and living expenses. Fell into the job by chance and works 40 hour weeks and makes $60k per year.

Another friend works in a money laundering bank department for a major bank. Fell into the job by chance. A little bit longer than 40 hour weeks and $80k salary with upward growth potential.

Neither of these people would have gotten in the door without a JD probably. It's the type of thing where you can get hired without a JD if you show some very decent credentials (great college school, good GPA, prior work experience, and awesome interviewer). Both of them tried to be lawyers for a little while but stumbled on these jobs and have never tried to get back in the legal world which they both could have probably done after a year or so in if they wanted to badly enough.

adil91 wrote:

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Roughly speaking:

For non-T14 schools, "JD advantage" is a euphemism for jobs that you could have probably gotten before law school without a law degree but that somehow may at some point use your JD knowledge.

For T14 schools, JD advantage jobs include high-end consulting work and other (generally high-paying) business-type jobs that may legitimately use your JD knowledge.

What about from schools like UCLA,Vandy,USC,?

I said "roughly speaking." I'm sure UCLA, etc. get some of the good kind of these jobs on some kind of sliding scale down to the crappiest schools, where students work at bars after graduation and the school counts it as JD advantage, full-time, long-term.

JohannDeMann wrote:One of my friends works at a major bank in their trust department. It's basically customer service and you tell people when they can or can't have money depending on if it meets the trust requirements i.e. I want to buy a new car can I have $20,000 from the trust when the trust says you get college tuition expenses and living expenses. Fell into the job by chance and works 40 hour weeks and makes $60k per year.

Another friend works in a money laundering bank department for a major bank. Fell into the job by chance. A little bit longer than 40 hour weeks and $80k salary with upward growth potential.

Neither of these people would have gotten in the door without a JD probably. It's the type of thing where you can get hired without a JD if you show some very decent credentials (great college school, good GPA, prior work experience, and awesome interviewer). Both of them tried to be lawyers for a little while but stumbled on these jobs and have never tried to get back in the legal world which they both could have probably done after a year or so in if they wanted to badly enough.

What caliber schools did they attend? The second one sounds very interesting

TTT

JohannDeMann wrote:TTT

Did they have any relevant experience before entering law school?

None.

Interesting. Tagging.

i will say that at schools with NALP reports, you can look at the business/industry salary stats which can give you a general idea of the caliber of those jobs

starry eyed wrote:i will say that at schools with NALP reports, you can look at the business/industry salary stats which can give you a general idea of the caliber of those jobs

thanks for this... I'm really curious because the "JD Advantage" category on the ABA report seems like such a black box to me.

Currently at a big law firm - we employ a couple of attorneys in the Library/ Research department. From what I've gathered, there are a lot of big law "support roles" that prefer/ need people with a JD.

That being said, I wouldn't particularly want any of these jobs.

JohannDeMann wrote:Another friend works in a money laundering bank department for a major bank.

I... assume that's a money laundering prevention department? At first I read it the other way, and....

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Roughly speaking:

For non-T14 schools, "JD advantage" is a euphemism for jobs that you could have probably gotten before law school without a law degree but that somehow may at some point use your JD knowledge.

For T14 schools, JD advantage jobs include high-end consulting work and other (generally high-paying) business-type jobs that may legitimately use your JD knowledge.

Not true. TT here and working a JD preferred job where they no longer higher non-JDs. Working with hedge funds and private equity at a big bank doing regulatory compliance. Basically means you need to know securities regulation well (most of the older non-lawyers I work with could probably get As in sec reg at my law school haha) and be able to read up quickly on new regulations and advice from regulators. You are in charge of working with lawyers (they basically function as advisors to the business), and keeping the business from breaking laws and regs. You do things like analyze and create policy for new regulations, check past transaction compliance with EU and US law, clear trades, keep track of non-public information to prevent insider trading, ensure that business maintains fiduciary duties. It's actually very interesting though most compliance jobs are definitely not this interesting and I would hesitate to recommend the field as a whole. Pay is good and 40 hours/week with exit options because of in-depth knowledge of private funds.

Was not forced into it because I got it during OCI but "forced" in the sense that I took it because job security for 2 years is awesome. If you are considering a similar position just be realistic about your expectations for day-to-day work and know your exit options if you want to re-enter law.

TLDR: don't despair. Some JD-preferred jobs are worth it.

collegewriter wrote:

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Roughly speaking:

For non-T14 schools, "JD advantage" is a euphemism for jobs that you could have probably gotten before law school without a law degree but that somehow may at some point use your JD knowledge.

For T14 schools, JD advantage jobs include high-end consulting work and other (generally high-paying) business-type jobs that may legitimately use your JD knowledge.

Not true. TT here and working a JD preferred job where they no longer higher non-JDs.

I don't think JD preferred means what you think it means.

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:

collegewriter wrote:

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Roughly speaking:

For non-T14 schools, "JD advantage" is a euphemism for jobs that you could have probably gotten before law school without a law degree but that somehow may at some point use your JD knowledge.

For T14 schools, JD advantage jobs include high-end consulting work and other (generally high-paying) business-type jobs that may legitimately use your JD knowledge.

Not true. TT here and working a JD preferred job where they no longer higher non-JDs.

I don't think JD preferred means what you think it means.

Because if they no longer hire non-JD's, then it's not just "preferred" but required?

CardozoLaw09 wrote:

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:

collegewriter wrote:

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Roughly speaking:

For non-T14 schools, "JD advantage" is a euphemism for jobs that you could have probably gotten before law school without a law degree but that somehow may at some point use your JD knowledge.

For T14 schools, JD advantage jobs include high-end consulting work and other (generally high-paying) business-type jobs that may legitimately use your JD knowledge.

Not true. TT here and working a JD preferred job where they no longer higher non-JDs.

I don't think JD preferred means what you think it means.

Because if they no longer hire non-JD's, then it's not just "preferred" but required?

I think that's what he/she means. I guess what I should have said was that this is a field that is as a whole JD-preferred or advantage and this position could potentially be obtained by a non-JD but it would be very difficult/the firm only recruits at law schools. Given that this type of position is what I think the author is talking about, I felt it appropriate to respond despite the semantics this person brought up.

I mean, taken literally, every JD required job is a JD advantage job, so designating something as a "JD preferred" job is meaningless if you're going to allow for overlap between the two definitions. I have always considered "JD preferred" jobs as jobs that do NOT require a JD, whether officially or unofficially. The fact that a job will not even consider non-JDs signals to me that it is JD required, not JD preferred.

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:I mean, taken literally, every JD required job is a JD advantage job, so designating something as a "JD preferred" job is meaningless if you're going to allow for overlap between the two definitions. I have always considered "JD preferred" jobs as jobs that do NOT require a JD, whether officially or unofficially. The fact that a job will not even consider non-JDs signals to me that it is JD required, not JD preferred.

This makes sense, but I do think people often use "JD-preferred" to mean "not practicing law," so in that respect, while the job discussed requires a JD in reality, it's also not what people think of when they see "JD required" (because they think of practicing law). So I don't think it was entirely bizarre for the poster to bring it up.