Debt for Plaintiff Side Lawyer Forum

[LawTweet]

I plan to go into plaintiff-side litigation, not big law and not exactly public interest either. I'd expect to make most of my salary on contingencies.

Given this info, what's a reasonable amount of debt to take on? I assume I wouldn't be eligible for most LRAP programs and thus I'd need to finance my whole education in a somewhat risky financial field. Does that mean I should be prioritizing schools where I can get big scholarships? Is it even worth it to apply to some of the very top schools?

[konar]

$45,000

[twenty]

Top priority is almost no debt. Like, can you live with your parents or your SO for three years AND get a full scholarship (with no stips)? If so, do that.

Second priority is going to school in the geographic area you want to practice. Don't go to UNC if you want to work in Arizona.

Then there are no other priorities.

Then at the very, very bottom of other things you might be considering, between school colors, parking situation, and the on-campus food, should be the school's USNWR ranking.

[twenty]

Follow up: I would never, ever even remotely consider taking on more than about 40k of debt if you want to work in plaintiff's.

[utlaw2007]

Really depends on the cost of living of the area of where you live...

But, I think your approach to plaintiff's litigation is wrong. If you are very risk averse, which is a wise thing to be in most instances, you ought not to consider plaintiff's litigation at all. The debt I took on and the debt that other colleague's of mine took on was more than 45k. Mine was around 60k.

True, you want to mitigate risks as much as possible if you are a business owner. But the correct answer to your question is that you don't want to take on any debt to be a contingency fee lawyer. But keep in mind, that safe way of thinking will not allow you to succeed as plaintiff's lawyer. You won't get safe/good cases with lots of value in the beginning. Why should anyone with good cases come to you? I'm not referring to you personally. I'm referring to you being new and not having a rep.

I have a thread on here that gives advice for how to get started in plaintiff's practice with your own firm. But it is an incredibly risky venture. Just generally speaking, it is virtually impossible to get solid cases that are not risky when you are the new kid on the block. So because of this truth and your mindset, you don't want to take on any debt.

If you're a river boat gambler like I am (there is methodology to my madness), then you have to calculate your risks based on lots of factors true to your area.

But in regards to knowing what amount of debt is safe for this line of work, there is no amount of debt that is safe for this line of work. If that is your concern, I'm warning you not to become a plaintiff's attorney. No matter what happens, there will be immense struggle at the beginning unless you are married to someone who can pay the bills. Get a firm job or find some other way to generate a steady, safe stream of revenue.

[Good Guy Gaud]

Has OP indicated whether he/she is planning to hang a shingle for themselves or join an already-existing firm? Another factor to consider is the type of plaintiffs side litigation OP wants to go into.

I'll echo the sentiment of the others that you really should do everything in your power to avoid taking on much debt... regardless of whether you want to go into plaintiffs side or to defense. But how risky it is depends on the practice too and where it is located.

e: I have more than $50k in debt and am plaintiffs side and am doing just fine. But I did not start my own firm and our practice is fairly exclusive.

[utlaw2007]

Do I believe plaintiff's work is bad? Of course not. You just have to approach it with a well thought out plan and have to have connections or you better make some connections with all sorts of people, not just lawyers, to have a shot at success. Against, read my sh^%$# law thread for advice.

At the same time, I cannot sit here and lie and tell you that doing this or that is safe when it comes to plaintiff's work. There is no such thing as safe anything.

You cannot approach plaintiff's work with the idea that there is a safe amount of debt to take on. There isn't. You have absolutely no idea of what kinds of quality cases you can get in your area. Area of practice helps a ton. I explain this at length. But even still, there are really good and really crappy cases in every single area of plaintiff's practice. And when you're new, guess what types of cases cross your path, usually? And then, you still have to get clients. They don't just fall in your lap because you've all the sudden decided to practice securities or oil and gas litigation.

Because plaintiff's practice is so wildly unpredictable with respect to revenue and when you make it, you can't remotely answer a question of safe debt. It depends on the kind of money you make, if any at all.

[Good Guy Gaud]

.

Can you link me to your thread re advice? I'd be interested in seeing what you have to say.

[utlaw2007]

Has OP indicated whether he/she is planning to hang a shingle for themselves or join an already-existing firm? Another factor to consider is the type of plaintiffs side litigation OP wants to go into.

This is a very good point. If you can get hired with a plaintiff's firm, then yes, by all means take that option if you are concerned with debt. However, if that is the route you want to take, I have absolutely no idea how much debt is safe for that scenario.

I do know, as I am near the point of hiring my first associate, my level of compensation will very good, although much of it is incentive based as that is the nature of the firm.

I would imagine that many plaintiff's firms have incentive based payment structures. But I don't know for sure. You're still dealing with small firms that vary wildly as to what they practice and the amount of money they make per case and the volume of cases they have.

If you work for an IP plaintiff's boutique, your compensation could be so large that your question about debt is moot. I have a few colleagues that work in IP boutiques. Likewise, you could work in a catastrophic personal injury firm and the same issue of debt would be a moot point. I had a law school classmate leave Susman to go work in a catastrophic personal injury firm. They made a ton of money. Obviously, they didn't make more than Susman, but there were far fewer attorneys to pay.

However, you could work in a car accident volume practice, and your pay is likely to be a sore spot. I knew a colleague that worked in one of these and he had nothing nice to say about the pay.

So it just depends. That's not a helpful answer, but it's the truth.

[Good Guy Gaud]

I would imagine that many plaintiff's firms have incentive based payment structures. But I don't know for sure.

Yea, I think this is the case more often than not.

[utlaw2007]

.

Can you link me to your thread re advice? I'd be interested in seeing what you have to say.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=210075

[Good Guy Gaud]

.

Can you link me to your thread re advice? I'd be interested in seeing what you have to say.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=210075

Thanks!

[utlaw2007]

.

Can you link me to your thread re advice? I'd be interested in seeing what you have to say.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=210075

Thanks!

You're very welcome.

[LawTweet]

I appreciate all of the advice. Basically I have good stats and think I have a decent chance at getting a substantial merit scholarship to a law school like Temple. I also think I have a decent chance of getting into a top school but obviously with a much lower probability of decent money. Of course I don't have options on the table yet so this is purely hypothetical and for all I know none of this could pan out as expected. But I'm just trying to figure out how to strategically apply to a variety of schools. It sounds like if I want to practice in Philadelphia that Temple or Villanova w/ scholarship might be a better option than, say, Penn with mega debt...

[LawTweet]

For the record, I also wouldn't consider myself risk-averse. I like risk. But I'd rather be making s*** money with no debt than with 200k debt or whatever I'd end up paying at top school. I tend to try to operate under the conservative assumption that I might not do well. Perhaps that's flawed reasoning though.

[Pomeranian]

For the record, I also wouldn't consider myself risk-averse. I like risk. But I'd rather be making s*** money with no debt than with 200k debt or whatever I'd end up paying at top school. I tend to try to operate under the conservative assumption that I might not do well. Perhaps that's flawed reasoning though.

There are almost no reasons I can think to pick Villanova over Penn.

[LawTweet]

^Even if I got a full ride to Villanova and no money at Penn?

[twenty]

There are almost no reasons I can think to pick Villanova over Penn.

I can think of many. For instance, if you want to work in Pennsylvania not doing biglaw. And if you're in the position of Villanova vs. Penn, you're likely getting a lot of money from Villanova.