Do you think the legal career will turn around? Forum

[lillawyer2]

we know the profession changed. Do you think the profession will bounce back?

[fats provolone]

nah

[acr]

No. Not until law schools stop churning out 40,000+ graduates for 20,000 legal jobs (unlikely), technology stops lessening the need for lawyers' services (unlikely), and the cohorts of undergrad liberal arts majors stop considering law as "America's great fallback (unlikely)."

[Traynor Brah]

there is no reason to be optimistic

[lillawyer2]

there is no reason to be optimistic

Is there any reason to be pessimistic..hasn't enrollment for LS dropped so much!

[Trippel]

there is no reason to be optimistic

Is there any reason to be pessimistic..hasn't enrollment for LS dropped so much!

Didn't the number of LSAT takers increase for October 2015? The downward trend in enrollment may be over.

[Br3v]

I mean, it already has the past 3 years or so. Not like it was pre-recession but it is nothing like it was in the height of the crash.

[zot1]

Let's not forget bar rates going on a downward trend... We still need that license to practice.

[lillawyer2]

there is no reason to be optimistic

Is there any reason to be pessimistic..hasn't enrollment for LS dropped so much!

Didn't the number of LSAT takers increase for October 2015? The downward trend in enrollment may be over.

Maybe...but taking the test and actually enrolling are two different things.

[TLSModBot]

No. It won't bounce back.

1. There are too many lawyers. We're still graduating almost double what there is actually demand for, every year.

2. Clients are bringing more work in-house rather than going to firms. Thus, companies require fewer services of law firms.

3. Technology is making a lot of legal work cheap commodity stuff (see, e.g. doc review).

4. Clients are exerting more pressure on firms to reduce rates

5. Clients don't want to pay for or train new lawyers

6. Law school is exorbitantly expensive, many firms will not be able to raise salaries to make it a worthwhile investment, and the promise of partnership is a joke for the vast majority of incoming lawyers. The costs and rewards of law are seriously out of whack and it will be very hard for the industry to self-correct in any kind of short order.

[Johann]

No. It won't bounce back.

1. There are too many lawyers. We're still graduating almost double what there is actually demand for, every year.

2. Clients are bringing more work in-house rather than going to firms. Thus, companies require fewer services of law firms.

3. Technology is making a lot of legal work cheap commodity stuff (see, e.g. doc review).

4. Clients are exerting more pressure on firms to reduce rates

5. Clients don't want to pay for or train new lawyers

6. Law school is exorbitantly expensive, many firms will not be able to raise salaries to make it a worthwhile investment, and the promise of partnership is a joke for the vast majority of incoming lawyers. The costs and rewards of law are seriously out of whack and it will be very hard for the industry to self-correct in any kind of short order.

all of this but also, even if you do make it
7. It's a service industry with incredibly high stakes. You have to sleep, eat, breathe, and bleed it to make a career out of it. The trend of technology basically just makes it so you have to be even more available.

Because there are even more jobs available outside of law (and within law) than in the recession, I'd say 2015 is a significantly worse time to embark on a legal career by starting law school than 2008 when the economy shit the bed. I can't believe people choose to pursue this profession.

[Jchance]

6. Law school is exorbitantly expensive, many firms will not be able to raise salaries to make it a worthwhile investment, and the promise of partnership is a joke for the vast majority of incoming lawyers. The costs and rewards of law are seriously out of whack and it will be very hard for the industry to self-correct in any kind of short order.

To add more:
8. Minimum wage is about to double in a few years and biglaw salary is still stagnant (I don't buy into that NY to 190k bs). $160k in 2007 is not the same as 160k in 2017. The whole legal career as a quick scheme to a nice salary is no longer worth it.

[lillawyer2]

6. Law school is exorbitantly expensive, many firms will not be able to raise salaries to make it a worthwhile investment, and the promise of partnership is a joke for the vast majority of incoming lawyers. The costs and rewards of law are seriously out of whack and it will be very hard for the industry to self-correct in any kind of short order.

To add more:
8. Minimum wage is about to double in a few years and biglaw salary is still stagnant (I don't buy into that NY to 190k bs). $160k in 2007 is not the same as 160k in 2017. The whole legal career as a quick scheme to a nice salary is no longer worth it.

The salary thing doesn't bother me...most people don't break 100k salary. Most people in business don't make over 100k till mid 30s. You bust your ass in every career...maybe you don't have to shell out that mass LS debt, but it's all relative... I know people a Deloitte making 80k at 28-29 and never seeing their bed for at least a few days. So you pay either way. I think most Americans make less than 50k a year...lol I also doubt the legal salary will stay an average 160k. It will go up. Maybe it will go up begrudgingly, but it will. Law schools will close. Those who don't come out of top schools won't get jobs. Don't go to a law school if you didn't get into a top school. If you didn't get into a top school and you decide to go then you better have a full ride...

[totesTheGoat]

The salary thing doesn't bother me...most people don't break 100k salary. Most people in business don't make over 100k till mid 30s. You bust your ass in every career...maybe you don't have to shell out that mass LS debt, but it's all relative.

You don't bust your ass the same way in most careers. I've worked in 3 or 4 industries in my life and my wife has worked in another 3 or 4. The only career that could potentially compete with the "bust your ass" mentality of law was engineering, and that was entirely self-motivated/optional (and it paid very well if you put in good hours). There are other jobs where you have to work the hours. There are other jobs where you have to endure the stress. However, there are very few jobs with the same combination of work and stress as (big)law.

There are a lot of $80-95k non-law jobs that are better from a $/hour metric than most $160k biglaw jobs. This is why law school is such a lose-lose proposition. You're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars (between costs and opportunity costs) on an education that gives you a small chance at $160k biglaw ($90k if adjusted to a 40 hour workweek), a moderate chance at $70k law ($55k adjusted to 40 hour workweek), and a moderate chance at being practically unemployable. If that information were presented to 0Ls, most would rather just work a $40k for 40 hour workweek job, skip the $20k/year student loan repayments, and actually have time to enjoy life.

[Troianii]

we know the profession changed. Do you think the profession will bounce back?

I'm not a law student or grad, but this question is something that can be pretty easily answered by looking at market trends. The recession hit the "legal industry" [something hardly seems right about that term] because in addition to the job losses from the recession, which hit many sectors, the legal industry was being pinched by changes in technology. Things like legalzoom decreased the demand for lawyers, and legal work is being outsourced more and more - odd as that sounds. It's called legal outsourcing, or LPO (legal process outsourcing). Now obviously a lot of people will say, "hey, they can't do what I do", but like any market a pinch on one end is felt, even if to a lesser degree, on the other. Additionally, though this affects the market at large to a lesser extent, states are tending towards practices that outdate lawyers, such as (thought not limited to) no-fault laws.

And then, to top it all off, you still have law schools churning out lawyers, creating supply that outpaces demand (oh, and increasing the personal debt held by Americans on average - yay!).

And imo it won't bounce back, because what has really caused a decreased demand for lawyers isn't a short-term issue. It's still in the process of leveling off. Some law schools desperately need to get shut down - just the other day I got an invitation to apply to Golden Gate, a heartfelt letter from one of their professors, but uh... 35.5% of their 2014 grads couldn't find jobs within nine months. It was even worse for 2013 grads, with 42.5% still unemployed nine months after graduation. Places like that need to get shut down. IMO law schools should lose their accreditation when they have three straight years of over 20% unemployment, and I'm sure many at TLS will say I'm being too easy by saying it should be 20%.

[lillawyer2]

The salary thing doesn't bother me...most people don't break 100k salary. Most people in business don't make over 100k till mid 30s. You bust your ass in every career...maybe you don't have to shell out that mass LS debt, but it's all relative.

You don't bust your ass the same way in most careers. I've worked in 3 or 4 industries in my life and my wife has worked in another 3 or 4. The only career that could potentially compete with the "bust your ass" mentality of law was engineering, and that was entirely self-motivated/optional (and it paid very well if you put in good hours). There are other jobs where you have to work the hours. There are other jobs where you have to endure the stress. However, there are very few jobs with the same combination of work and stress as (big)law.

There are a lot of $80-95k non-law jobs that are better from a $/hour metric than most $160k biglaw jobs. This is why law school is such a lose-lose proposition. You're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars (between costs and opportunity costs) on an education that gives you a small chance at $160k biglaw ($90k if adjusted to a 40 hour workweek), a moderate chance at $70k law ($55k adjusted to 40 hour workweek), and a moderate chance at being practically unemployable. If that information were presented to 0Ls, most would rather just work a $40k for 40 hour workweek job, skip the $20k/year student loan repayments, and actually have time to enjoy life.

In nyc I would never rather work for 40k and have a life. When I was making 40k I took on 2 other jobs to make the savings necessary to put me equal to a person making 60k and I would perform the same process if I was only making 40k. It's an odd thing, but I can't jive with a lot of your talk.

In a career, I don't know many that give you 80k-95k and don't put their foot on your neck to make sure you work for it. Have you worked for big 4 accounting? They steal your soul. Now imagine having your soul stolen and life beaten out of you for 80k at s job you didn't even love, but thought it be better than law school bc of the debt...that's enough to send me to the grave.

Okay your right you also have those jobs that pay well with out the significant hard work....but all of that is relative...if I became a plumber...it's different type of work...maybe putting my head under people's sinks all or half a day makes me extremely exhausted and gives me terrible knee and back problems. What if being a secretary while laid back is easy 60-70k but isn't fufilling and mentally im dying for a job where I'm valued more than a pretty face...

I don't think the legal market is bad for t-14 schools. They are doing fine and will continue probably to do so. The lower tiered schools will always survive because you have people I'll informed and still attend, bc not even God can stop them from being a lawyer.

I think the legal career can adapt to technology...has web md...killed the pcp doctors of the world? Has investopedia and other website killed personal broker careers...nope...it probably changed them...changed what approach they give and what services they provide...but it definately doesn't make them obsolete.

I know they aren't legit comparisons...however I'm just trying to say that technology isn't oblitherating lawyers...I do think the market is going for the better in t-14s... Their job placement is very good unless the purport lies

[Troianii]

The salary thing doesn't bother me...most people don't break 100k salary. Most people in business don't make over 100k till mid 30s. You bust your ass in every career...maybe you don't have to shell out that mass LS debt, but it's all relative.

I don't think the legal market is bad for t-14 schools. They are doing fine and will continue probably to do so. The lower tiered schools will always survive because you have people I'll informed and still attend, bc not even God can stop them from being a lawyer.

I think the legal career can adapt to technology...has web md...killed the pcp doctors of the world? Has investopedia and other website killed personal broker careers...nope...it probably changed them...changed what approach they give and what services they provide...but it definately doesn't make them obsolete.

I know they aren't legit comparisons...however I'm just trying to say that technology isn't oblitherating lawyers...I do think the market is going for the better in t-14s... Their job placement is very good unless the purport lies

You know when the Great Depression really hit in the early 1930s, most of the middle and upper class were largely unaffected and most went on living their lives as they did, but that doesn't mean that the national economy wasn't bad. That's basically the same thing in law - saying that T-14 grads will do fine is like saying the upper class got by just fine in the Great Depression. Not trying to be snarky, though I know that's kind of how I am, but I just think that when people refer to the "legal market/economy/industry" etc., they're not referring to the T14. Graduates from the T14 were never really affected by the economic downturn.

[lillawyer2]

The salary thing doesn't bother me...most people don't break 100k salary. Most people in business don't make over 100k till mid 30s. You bust your ass in every career...maybe you don't have to shell out that mass LS debt, but it's all relative.

I don't think the legal market is bad for t-14 schools. They are doing fine and will continue probably to do so. The lower tiered schools will always survive because you have people I'll informed and still attend, bc not even God can stop them from being a lawyer.

I think the legal career can adapt to technology...has web md...killed the pcp doctors of the world? Has investopedia and other website killed personal broker careers...nope...it probably changed them...changed what approach they give and what services they provide...but it definately doesn't make them obsolete.

I know they aren't legit comparisons...however I'm just trying to say that technology isn't oblitherating lawyers...I do think the market is going for the better in t-14s... Their job placement is very good unless the purport lies

You know when the Great Depression really hit in the early 1930s, most of the middle and upper class were largely unaffected and most went on living their lives as they did, but that doesn't mean that the national economy wasn't bad. That's basically the same thing in law - saying that T-14 grads will do fine is like saying the upper class got by just fine in the Great Depression. Not trying to be snarky, though I know that's kind of how I am, but I just think that when people refer to the "legal market/economy/industry" etc., they're not referring to the T14. Graduates from the T14 were never really affected by the economic downturn.

I get your point. I guess it's just T-14 or no law school at all.

[TLSModBot]

If you want Biglaw, then yes T14 with some scholarship $ is the only way to fly. If you're not looking for that, then other schools (With VERY significant scholarship money) are perfectly fine.

The main problem is that all or most law schools hold themselves out as preparing students for dat Biglaw lifestyle, and charging tuition prices accordingly, when they really can't provide that with a TTT degree.

[Troianii]

If you want Biglaw, then yes T14 with some scholarship $ is the only way to fly. If you're not looking for that, then other schools (With VERY significant scholarship money) are perfectly fine.

The main problem is that all or most law schools hold themselves out as preparing students for dat Biglaw lifestyle, and charging tuition prices accordingly, when they really can't provide that with a TTT degree.

I think one of the problems with this, what is essentially a "T14 or nothing" attitude is that it fails to consider different positions people are in. For example - if you're a business grad from an Ivy League school then yeah, T14 or nothing makes sense, because your job prospects w/o law school are already pretty good. But if you're a women's studies major from, idk, Colby, then you're job prospects aren't that great - and the degree to which a law degree from, say, BYU would improve your job prospects far outweighs the debt consideration (especially for BYU - ok, bad example, let's say Wisconsin or Seton Hall). BC grads, for example, aren't struggling - they're not making big law left and right, but BC grads aren't struggling. The law school rankings, as far as job prospects are concerned, aren't a sudden drop off after T14 (though there is a noticeable drop, which is why we even have the term T14 and not a nice figure like T20). But, for a lot of people, the improved job prospects that a law degree offers from many non-T14 colleges are a lot better than what they're otherwise looking at.

And, of course, I'm not talking about TTT here - I'm with you on that, unless you're in that crowd that says anything that isn't T14 (to include Texas) is TTT.

[TLSModBot]

If you want Biglaw, then yes T14 with some scholarship $ is the only way to fly. If you're not looking for that, then other schools (With VERY significant scholarship money) are perfectly fine.

The main problem is that all or most law schools hold themselves out as preparing students for dat Biglaw lifestyle, and charging tuition prices accordingly, when they really can't provide that with a TTT degree.

I think one of the problems with this, what is essentially a "T14 or nothing" attitude is that it fails to consider different positions people are in. For example - if you're a business grad from an Ivy League school then yeah, T14 or nothing makes sense, because your job prospects w/o law school are already pretty good. But if you're a women's studies major from, idk, Colby, then you're job prospects aren't that great - and the degree to which a law degree from, say, BYU would improve your job prospects far outweighs the debt consideration (especially for BYU - ok, bad example, let's say Wisconsin or Seton Hall). BC grads, for example, aren't struggling - they're not making big law left and right, but BC grads aren't struggling. The law school rankings, as far as job prospects are concerned, aren't a sudden drop off after T14 (though there is a noticeable drop, which is why we even have the term T14 and not a nice figure like T20). But, for a lot of people, the improved job prospects that a law degree offers from many non-T14 colleges are a lot better than what they're otherwise looking at.

And, of course, I'm not talking about TTT here - I'm with you on that, unless you're in that crowd that says anything that isn't T14 (to include Texas) is TTT.

\

There isn't a huge drop-off right after the T14, sure, but because hiring within some of the T14 is garbage, that's not much comfort. For instance, my alma mater of GULC has about a 50% BigLaw and Fed Clerkship hiring rate. That's pretty awful even with all the fudging for PI people and whatnot that apologists always trot out.

Risk may be tolerable for different people given their socioeconomic situation, but to the extent that we can universalize (which, y'know, is what we try to do when giving advice on law schools because just throwing up our hands and saying 'Everyone's a special flower! you do you bro!' just isn't helpful), we can look at cost of the school and the expected earnings from jobs you are likely to get coming out of said school. 150K in tuition - plus opportunity cost of not working for 3 years, so let's say 250K conservatively all told - stacked against a 50/50 shot of a job that MAY let you pay that back and just get back to zero (if you don't burn out or get forced out first, VERY real possibilities) is objectively shitty. And that's GULC, which is part of said T14.

[Troianii]

If you want Biglaw, then yes T14 with some scholarship $ is the only way to fly. If you're not looking for that, then other schools (With VERY significant scholarship money) are perfectly fine.

The main problem is that all or most law schools hold themselves out as preparing students for dat Biglaw lifestyle, and charging tuition prices accordingly, when they really can't provide that with a TTT degree.

I think one of the problems with this, what is essentially a "T14 or nothing" attitude is that it fails to consider different positions people are in. For example - if you're a business grad from an Ivy League school then yeah, T14 or nothing makes sense, because your job prospects w/o law school are already pretty good. But if you're a women's studies major from, idk, Colby, then you're job prospects aren't that great - and the degree to which a law degree from, say, BYU would improve your job prospects far outweighs the debt consideration (especially for BYU - ok, bad example, let's say Wisconsin or Seton Hall). BC grads, for example, aren't struggling - they're not making big law left and right, but BC grads aren't struggling. The law school rankings, as far as job prospects are concerned, aren't a sudden drop off after T14 (though there is a noticeable drop, which is why we even have the term T14 and not a nice figure like T20). But, for a lot of people, the improved job prospects that a law degree offers from many non-T14 colleges are a lot better than what they're otherwise looking at.

And, of course, I'm not talking about TTT here - I'm with you on that, unless you're in that crowd that says anything that isn't T14 (to include Texas) is TTT.

\

There isn't a huge drop-off right after the T14, sure, but because hiring within some of the T14 is garbage, that's not much comfort. For instance, my alma mater of GULC has about a 50% BigLaw and Fed Clerkship hiring rate. That's pretty awful even with all the fudging for PI people and whatnot that apologists always trot out.

Risk may be tolerable for different people given their socioeconomic situation, but to the extent that we can universalize (which, y'know, is what we try to do when giving advice on law schools because just throwing up our hands and saying 'Everyone's a special flower! you do you bro!' just isn't helpful), we can look at cost of the school and the expected earnings from jobs you are likely to get coming out of said school. 150K in tuition - plus opportunity cost of not working for 3 years, so let's say 250K conservatively all told - stacked against a 50/50 shot of a job that MAY let you pay that back and just get back to zero (if you don't burn out or get forced out first, VERY real possibilities) is objectively shitty. And that's GULC, which is part of said T14.

^_- you know that big law isn't the only way to make decent money, right? There are plenty of mid size firms that pay decent wages. No, big law is definitely preferable, but based on career prospects the medium law is a big step up for a lot of people. What's a gender studies major going to make? Maybe 20-30k at the local co-op. What will he/she make if they go to law school? I mean heck, there are a lot of 2nd tier schools where the median stating salary is well above 60k - and you're assuming pretty much worst case scenario on costs. BYU is 20k/yr for non-Mormons, 11k for Mormons, and it's a damned good school - who is going to be drowning in that 60k debt with the job prospects coming out of BYU? hell even look at UNH, bottom run tier 2 - grads from there average a starting salary of six figures. You don't need to start off at 160k or even close for it to be worth it. Think of this - the median and average salaries at a lot of non-T14 law schools in the 1st tier (Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota etc.) Are around 70-90k. Let's take the low end, and take a student going to one of those schools without ANY scholarship: it's roughly 100k a year, but lower when you consider instate tuition (which most schools allow non residents to get after a year). So 100k in debt, 100k in lost income, and starting at 70k... starting at 70k is probably 30-40k more than they would have been making. With faster pay increases than they'd get outside of law (typically), the student is earning easily 30k+ more than they would have for the rest of their life. Ok, figure in debt financing - let's say 12k/yr to pay it off within 10yrs. Okay, so the student is only up 18K to start with, but when figure over their lifetime - going to law school, at some lower end tier 1s and even many tier 2s - it is immensely valuable and we'll worth it.

Stop telling people bull like the only way to go is T14 with scholarships. There are many , many crap schools out there - the majority are - but at least half the schools ranked 15-100 offer good enough job prospects to make it worthwhile and cost effective for many students.

[TLSModBot]

Now that you're entering retard-mode I'll be a little more blunt:

1. I never said 'T14 or nothing' - I literally said upthread that lower down schools are OK on schollys.

2. What I said regarding t14 was: For Biglaw the financial reward and risk barely work out for the lower t14, if then. Saying 'But lower paying Mid Law tho!' completely misss the point that A. jobs that pay LESS than BigLaw can't bring you back to zero net worth any better than BigLaw and B. Going 250K in the hole isn't a step up for ANYONE unless they can make it back. 'Opportunity for a better life' and crippling nondischargeable debt loads are mutually incompatible. Schools that ARE affordable and target regional jobs/markets are great - which I essentially said already.

This whole 'poor people need opportunities too' shtick is exactly why predatory scam schools justify taking money from those who can't afford it, on the slim chance of a possibility that maybe they'll make it big. We can disagree over where that line is drawn (and no, a scam school isn't just anything below the t14), but the fact remains that a shitload if people are in law school that shouldn't be, and a shitload if schools exist that shouldn't.

[NoBladesNoBows]

[A. Nony Mouse]

Capitol is right that no one here says T14 only, so you're arguing at a strawman mostly. But even so, some quibbles:

I really don't believe that the average starting salary for a UNH grad is 6 figures. Average of those who reported, maybe? Which isn't the same thing. In fact, average salaries anywhere are kind of meaningless given the bi modal distribution of salaries - does anyone actually make the average?

I'm also not convinced by "faster salary increases than outside of law" - I don't think that's at all correct outside of biglaw or the feds (so, for the majority of people you're talking about).

(I also think you're underestimating the earning potential for humanities majors because entry-level salaries out of school aren't necessarily indicative of career earnings, but WE.)

I'm not remotely T14 or bust, and think schools like BYU and Wisconsin are great deals for the right person (as people here readily acknowledge). But your "in-state tuition" argument seems a little out of date, too - in-state tuition at my state LS is now about $28k a year, and actually plenty of schools don't give in-state after a year. If you add COL and interest to that tuition you're well over $100k. And that can legitimately affect your future options.

I agree that going to law school can be worth it for many people at many schools. But don't sugar coat it.

Edit: oops, my LS tuition for in-state is now $32k a year. And I'm sure that will go up before people now applying graduate.