LST - "J.D. Advantage" and "Professional" Forum

Troianii · Post by **Troianii** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:42 am

So I've been using law school transparency a lot for gauging my job prospects coming out of law school. A while back I heard a lot of people knock these two categories as if they don't count. From my understanding, these are generally decent jobs that don't require a J.D. but which someone got an edge in getting because of their J.D., such as "in house lawyers", and generally speaking that doesn't sound so bad to me. It's not "real" lawyering, but as long as its a decent job what's the issue? For example, 9.3% of Northwestern's recent grads got "J.D. Advantage" jobs... I just wonder if the flak these figures get is really because they're bad jobs or just because they're not "real" lawyers.

despina · Post by **despina** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 7:31 am

An "in house lawyer" is a real lawyer, and it definitely requires a JD. It just means your only client is your employer -- you're part of the legal team for a single business, organization, etc. These are considered great jobs which can have good pay, but often reasonable hours compared to biglaw.

Troianii · Post by **Troianii** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 7:34 am

despina wrote:An "in house lawyer" is a real lawyer, and it definitely requires a JD. It just means your only client is your employer -- you're part of the legal team for a single business, organization, etc. These are considered great jobs which can have good pay, but often reasonable hours compared to biglaw.

OK. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I thought I read somewhere that in house lawyers were examples of "J.D. Advantage" as opposed to the "bar passage required" category on LST

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... jobs/2014/

petepilsh · Post by **petepilsh** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 8:20 am

When I think of JD advantage jobs, I think of jobs that do not require either a JD or law license to obtain; however, the JD, knowledge and skill set will give you an advantage over the rest of the applicant pool. Such jobs would be someone in compliance or a compliance department. Possibly a grant writer? Someone dealing with a government contractor? I don't know other examples.

An in house lawyer, often called, in house counsel, is a lawyer and is adequately and correctly described above.

P.S. -- The numbers for JD
Advantage jobs are likely inflated, because what person obtains a JD, goes out in the job market, finds a non-legal job and doesn't believe his or her JD helped them land the job and thus reports it as "JD Advantage" when in reality they could be working in a greenhouse.

Troianii · Post by **Troianii** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 9:10 am

petepilsh wrote:When I think of JD advantage jobs, I think of jobs that do not require either a JD or law license to obtain; however, the JD, knowledge and skill set will give you an advantage over the rest of the applicant pool. Such jobs would be someone in compliance or a compliance department. Possibly a grant writer? Someone dealing with a government contractor? I don't know other examples.

An in house lawyer, often called, in house counsel, is a lawyer and is adequately and correctly described above.

P.S. -- The numbers for JD
Advantage jobs are likely inflated, because what person obtains a JD, goes out in the job market, finds a non-legal job and doesn't believe his or her JD helped them land the job and thus reports it as "JD Advantage" when in reality they could be working in a greenhouse.

Ah okay, that makes sense - why people crapped on them.

A. Nony Mouse · Post by **A. Nony Mouse** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:08 am

"Professional" jobs out of Northwestern are likely very good, given the student body they select. "Professional" jobs out of Golden Gate U are probably less so. Either way, the problem with this category is that since the jobs aren't even "JD advantage," it's not clear that getting the JD was any kind of value-add - did the person go to law school not intending to practice law, or did they end up in a professional job because they couldn't get a legal one?

zot1 · Post by **zot1** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 12:22 pm

As a previous poster mentioned, JD Advantage jobs don't require a JD but if you have one, it can give you a boost in the hiring process. To give you an example, this type of jobs are mostly in contracting for either government and big companies. The big difference is that there are very little advancement opportunities and you're likely stuck with your salary for years to come. Anecdotally, it's also harder to transition back to a legal job.

In house counsels are definitely real lawyers with bar passage required. Some companies that may do only transactional work might not require an active license, but this type of jobs would still never go in the JD Advantage section.

Troianii · Post by **Troianii** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:23 pm

zot1 wrote:As a previous poster mentioned, JD Advantage jobs don't require a JD but if you have one, it can give you a boost in the hiring process. To give you an example, this type of jobs are mostly in contracting for either government and big companies. The big difference is that there are very little advancement opportunities and you're likely stuck with your salary for years to come. Anecdotally, it's also harder to transition back to a legal job.

In house counsels are definitely real lawyers with bar passage required. Some companies that may do only transactional work might not require an active license, but this type of jobs would still never go in the JD Advantage section.

Ah, that makes sense.Thanks for the responses, all.

LST - "J.D. Advantage" and "Professional" Forum

LST - "J.D. Advantage" and "Professional"

Re: LST - "J.D. Advantage" and "Professional"

Re: LST - "J.D. Advantage" and "Professional"

Re: LST - "J.D. Advantage" and "Professional"

Re: LST - "J.D. Advantage" and "Professional"

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Re: LST - "J.D. Advantage" and "Professional"

Re: LST - "J.D. Advantage" and "Professional"

Re: LST - "J.D. Advantage" and "Professional"

Register for access!