In what instances is it rewarding to attend law school? Forum

[lillawyer2]

I define rewarding as follows: lucrative, financially smart, great or good quality of life, good and improving market and mobility.

[collegebum1989]

Think you'll generally hear that none of these are true for the majority of law students.

Law school is rewarding if you:
a) go to the right school with the appropriate expectations
b) have realistic goals for outcomes
c) are able to tolerate the BS you need to before you even get your first paycheck
d) can get along with "type A" students, and
e) have done research on the industry, and understand that majority of the descriptions that non-lawyers provide are myths or purely untrue

[lillawyer2]

Think you'll generally hear that none of these are true for the majority of law students.

Law school is rewarding if you:
a) go to the right school with the appropriate expectations
b) have realistic goals for outcomes
c) are able to tolerate the BS you need to before you even get your first paycheck
d) can get along with "type A" students, and
e) have done research on the industry, and understand that majority of the descriptions that non-lawyers provide are myths or purely untrue

a) In every case, is it true that attending a T-14 will get you somewhere beneficial?

c) Please elaborate, what sort of BS, would one have to endure?

e) The descriptions of what? To make sure I understand, so, say I want to be a AUSA. I researched that in order to obtain my goal, I must attend a top school and acquire scholarship $$$ (because who wants to be in debt). I go for big law and get litigation experience and so one and so forth. What descriptions are non-lawyers providing that are myths/untruths?

[Traynor Brah]

I define rewarding as follows: lucrative, financially smart, great or good quality of life, good and improving market and mobility.

It's certainly lucrative relative to most professions, but for the vast majority of students it will not be extraordinarily lucrative, nor financially smart (three years opportunity cost and average 120K in debt). If by QOL you mean 9-5 then that's generally not going to happen without sacrificing the lucrative aspect. You will also have very little mobility relative to most professions, though I suppose the multi-state bar is gaining steam.

Law school can be a rewarding path, for sure, but I would probably say no with respect to your definition. Perhaps if you were an HYS lock, that might change things, but I don't know enough about unicorn jobs to say for sure.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Non-lawyers tend to think that law is prestigious, glamorous, lucrative, and interesting, in ways that it isn't. They tend to think it's like the TV portrayals. So they tell people to go to law school for those reasons.

[lillawyer2]

I define rewarding as follows: lucrative, financially smart, great or good quality of life, good and improving market and mobility.

It's certainly lucrative relative to most professions, but for the vast majority of students it will not be extraordinarily lucrative, nor financially smart (three years opportunity cost and average 120K in debt). If by QOL you mean 9-5 then that's generally not going to happen without sacrificing the lucrative aspect. You will also have very little mobility relative to most professions, though I suppose the multi-state bar is gaining steam.

Law school can be a rewarding path, for sure, but I would probably say no with respect to your definition. Perhaps if you were an HYS lock, that might change things, but I don't know enough about unicorn jobs to say for sure.

For the bold, you are considering students who attend universities at sticker and attend lower tiered schools, correct?

I am aiming for HYS/CCN and everything between the T-14. I don't want to poorly assume that, if I do get into the aforementioned institutions that I am guaranteed a good and solid career.

When I mentioned QOL, I did not mean 9-5 even though that is what it partially entails. I meant that I would be able to afford to pay my mortgage, travel on my vacation days and be able to breathe outside air...develop a decent social life even if it is only with my law peers for a while. I envision for a almost perfect lawyer QOL that despite being stuck at my desk, there are people to talk to and things to smile about at the office. I don't want to be locked and chained to my desk. If you need me to work 12-15 hrs a day at least allow me to smile, walk around and have good decent conversations/building relationships.

[UnicornHunter]

The answers to all of these questions are

1) hugely subjective
2) completely dependent on the situation
3) easily found by reading around these top-law-fora for a while

So, maybe you should do #3, op, and develop your own opinion?

[lillawyer2]

Non-lawyers tend to think that law is prestigious, glamorous, lucrative, and interesting, in ways that it isn't. They tend to think it's like the TV portrayals. So they tell people to go to law school for those reasons.

No one that I know living in today's world would consider law careers as prestigious and glamorous. Everyone who is a non-lawyer ( we are still working with only those I am familiar with ) thinks it is a oversaturated waste of time field. Why do they think this, well because their family members are attending St. Johns and Brooklyn Law with minimal scholarship and even full rides, and then watch those graduates come out with low paying jobs and or 3 years of school for bs pay and they struggle with loans.

I don't think any career that requires to you go back to school intensively for 3 years or take a crap load of difficult examinations is glamorous. Jobs like Lawyers, Doctors, Actuaries, CFA's aren't glamorous they are prestigious only in the sense of how hard an individual has worked to reach their goals.

Law being interesting is an opinion. I know people who love what they do and those that don't. I also know non-lawyers with biased opinions on both sides.

The same goes for lucrative.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I don't disagree with any of that. You asked what myths/untruths non-lawyers were espousing, and I answered based on the experiences of many people here. It's nice that your experience has been different, but when someone says that for law to be rewarding someone has to have a realistic view of the industry, they say so because many people don't.

If you're aiming for biglaw, though, I'm not sure if what you're describing as the perfect QOL is guaranteed. Read posts by the biglaw associates around here and see what you think.

[lillawyer2]

The answers to all of these questions are

1) hugely subjective
2) completely dependent on the situation
3) easily found by reading around these top-law-fora for a while

So, maybe you should do #3, op, and develop your own opinion?

How can it be easily found if the answer is 1st highly subjective and 2nd completely dependent on the situation?

From reading TLS it is hard to come to a standard conclusion. I think TLS works better on an individual basis with specific variables and goals. However, I wanted a standard answer, if possible, that could apply to most people. For example, law school is always lucrative, if and only if, you go to a top school and get as much $$ as possible. The End.

[basedvulpes]

Post removed.

[lillawyer2]

I don't disagree with any of that. You asked what myths/untruths non-lawyers were espousing, and I answered based on the experiences of many people here. It's nice that your experience has been different, but when someone says that for law to be rewarding someone has to have a realistic view of the industry, they say so because many people don't.

If you're aiming for biglaw, though, I'm not sure if what you're describing as the perfect QOL is guaranteed. Read posts by the biglaw associates around here and see what you think.

Sorry I didn't realize you were answering that facet of my question. Where is my coffee?!? I get it 100%. You are right.

I want my track to be AUSA my second option is JAG. My understanding is to attend the best school and obtain the most $$$. My assumption is that this path would guarantee success even if I don't get into either AUSA or JAG, because my institution name would ideally carry me. I'd probably get a good job and maintain one..

I want to sort of make sure my assumptions are more than just assumptions, but close to fact as possible.

[FloridaCoastalorbust]

i don't like OP

[A. Nony Mouse]

How can it be easily found if the answer is 1st highly subjective and 2nd completely dependent on the situation?

From reading TLS it is hard to come to a standard conclusion. I think TLS works better on an individual basis with specific variables and goals. However, I wanted a standard answer, if possible, that could apply to most people. For example, law school is always lucrative, if and only if, you go to a top school and get as much $$ as possible. The End.

There is no way to say "always" about basically anything. Maybe law school is always unlikely to be a huge financial mistake if you go to a T14 for free. But that's about it. Lucrative means different things to different to people; for instance, plenty of people here disagree over whether you earn a lot of money in biglaw. Many people who go to law school thinking they'll do biglaw don't. Etc.

And you can find answers here because you know what's important to you and what your situation is. We can't tell you those things. That's how it's subjective and depends on your situation, yet can be found out by researching.

But no, there aren't any guarantees. There just aren't.

[A. Nony Mouse]

i don't like OP

Thank you for this substantive contribution to the discussion.

[lillawyer2]

Are you just looking for someone to come affirm or disaffirm your desire to attend law school? It feels like there's a strong subtext to this thread.

No, I want someone to confirm my line of thinking. I know I have a desire to attend law school and be a lawyer. I don't need confirmation on that. I would like confirmation that there is some security remaining in the legal field. I want to know that there is mobility and options. I know that options are not great for those who attend universities that are not within a certain ranking, however, those who attend top institutions, is it incredibly lucrative? Am I set? Do I have mobility to move around and enjoy other facets of law?

I understand nothing is guaranteed, a lot of it depends on the type of person that I am, but it would be nice to know that there is security that for the top schools there is a much larger market with options.

[lillawyer2]

i don't like OP

Thank you for this substantive contribution to the discussion.

I'm suspicious of FloridaCoastalorbust, because of their inability to contribute anything of substance to this thread.

[lillawyer2]

How can it be easily found if the answer is 1st highly subjective and 2nd completely dependent on the situation?

From reading TLS it is hard to come to a standard conclusion. I think TLS works better on an individual basis with specific variables and goals. However, I wanted a standard answer, if possible, that could apply to most people. For example, law school is always lucrative, if and only if, you go to a top school and get as much $$ as possible. The End.

There is no way to say "always" about basically anything. Maybe law school is always unlikely to be a huge financial mistake if you go to a T14 for free. But that's about it. Lucrative means different things to different to people; for instance, plenty of people here disagree over whether you earn a lot of money in biglaw. Many people who go to law school thinking they'll do biglaw don't. Etc.

And you can find answers here because you know what's important to you and what your situation is. We can't tell you those things. That's how it's subjective and depends on your situation, yet can be found out by researching.

But no, there aren't any guarantees. There just aren't.

Yes, I should NOT have been absolute, as I know nothing is guaranteed. However, I would like some security, a more than likely type of response. For instance, a student attends med school, the expense is great and they know this, but they also know they are more than likely will be financially stable somewhere down the line. It isn't guaranteed and a lot has to do with them and how he/she performs, but there is so security there enough for them to take a leap of faith and pursue their passion.

I know these are two different fields, but I hope you see what I'm trying to say.

[A. Nony Mouse]

No, I want someone to confirm my line of thinking. I know I have a desire to attend law school and be a lawyer. I don't need confirmation on that. I would like confirmation that there is some security remaining in the legal field. I want to know that there is mobility and options. I know that options are not great for those who attend universities that are not within a certain ranking, however, those who attend top institutions, is it incredibly lucrative? Am I set? Do I have mobility to move around and enjoy other facets of law?

I understand nothing is guaranteed, a lot of it depends on the type of person that I am, but it would be nice to know that there is security that for the top schools there is a much larger market with options.

No one can really say that. I mean, security is relative, right? You have a much better shot at mobility and options from one of the top schools than from lower-ranked schools, sure. And from a top school without debt you're probably in a good position, but absolute security? No one can say that. People from top schools do strike out, on occasion. They go to a firm and the firm closes and they can't get another job. They decide they hate law and leave it. Nothing is guaranteed.

There are certain obstacles to mobility in law regardless of where you go. The bar exam licenses you in a specific state, for instance (so if you move you have to take another exam/waive in - not insurmountable, but something to keep in mind). People change jobs all the time - regardless of what level school they're at - but law tends toward specialization. If you start in criminal law out of law school, it will be harder to switch into civil, and vice versa. If your civil experience is all in construction defect litigation, it will probably be hard to move into antitrust. etc. That's the nature of law regardless of what school you go to. So it depends what you mean by mobility and options.

Saying that if you go to a top school, law will be incredibly lucrative, doesn't make much sense, no. But it might help if you define "incredibly lucrative." Most people don't see "being able to pay a mortgage and take a vacation" as "incredibly lucrative" (but it might depend on where your mortgage and vacation are).

[collegebum1989]

Think you'll generally hear that none of these are true for the majority of law students.

Law school is rewarding if you:
a) go to the right school with the appropriate expectations
b) have realistic goals for outcomes
c) are able to tolerate the BS you need to before you even get your first paycheck
d) can get along with "type A" students, and
e) have done research on the industry, and understand that majority of the descriptions that non-lawyers provide are myths or purely untrue

a) In every case, is it true that attending a T-14 will get you somewhere beneficial?

c) Please elaborate, what sort of BS, would one have to endure?

e) The descriptions of what? To make sure I understand, so, say I want to be a AUSA. I researched that in order to obtain my goal, I must attend a top school and acquire scholarship $$$ (because who wants to be in debt). I go for big law and get litigation experience and so one and so forth. What descriptions are non-lawyers providing that are myths/untruths?

a) Not always. At least 20-30% of T14 students (especially at the lower T14) don't get biglaw, some are underemployed, and other unemployed if you're at the bottom of the class or have terrible social skills. This means that you should try to get into the best school possible, or go to the school to minimize your debt, or a combination of the two.

c) From 0L to First Year Associate (I'm not counting SA paychecks), you need to go through three additional years of school, take on significant debt (unless you get scholarships), study in your mid-to-late twenties when you could be generating income or doing something else more "fulfilling," and gun for your class rank to make it out of law school with decent opportunities. For those three years, you'll also see your friends that are working have income (and a better quality of life), and to some, this feels miserable and makes them question if they made the right decision to attend law school.

In addition, at most law schools (e.g., outside the T25), getting biglaw is a pipe dream. Even at the top (not not T14 schools) you need to be in the top 15-30% of your class to even have a chance. Second, grades can be, to a certain extent, more than just studying more than the rest of your class. Therefore, there's no gaurantee that you'll come out with the outcome that you wanted when you came in.

When you do get your class rank, you become a pure statistic, and the rest of your credentials, interests, and other skills are evaluated in the context of your class rank and your law school rank. If you do actually get biglaw, you're less than 5% likely to actually make partner, and will probably be working 11-12 hours per day and because you're at the bottom of the totem pole, you'll be doing majority of the work to make other people happy.

I would call that a bunch of BS before a receiving a paycheck (especially since it's not even guaranteed).


e) Everyone thinks lawyers make $$$ and are badasses because they are supposedly aggressive, have an intellectually-stimulating job, and are "shot callers." To an extent, every major profession is probably exaggerated by non-practitioners. However, law and medicine especially tend to be the most glamorized because of the "potential" income one can make and because TV shows often misrepresent characters playing these roles.

In reality, being a lawyer is pretty much very similar to any other type of professional job. You sit at a desk, do most of your work on the computer, and spend most of your time either reading or drafting documents that generate income for your law firm (or other type of organization). It's a business-oriented job, so you need to be efficient and you need to have personal skills. There's nothing special about having a JD that provides you with some sense of enlightenment that you could not have figured out if you had never went to law school. Sure, you know about legal doctrines, but to be honest, any one with some curiosity and general intellect could probably figure out how to solve everyday legal problems. The whole going to law school to learn to "think like a lawyer" is a facade, in my opinion, perpetuated by practicing attorneys, law firms, and law schools, who have an incentive to maintain a certain perception of the profession to continue to generate business for themselves.


All said, I work at a biglaw firm, and I feel like everything you've mentioned in your post is true for myself. The difference is that I went to law school with realistic expectations, not that I would be climbing some sort of corporate pedestal to fame and glamor.

[twenty]

You're not really asking if law is rewarding, you're asking if you can make a lot of money in law. When you define "rewarding" as: lucrative, financially smart, great or good quality of life, good and improving market and mobility, literally only one of those four items (good quality of life) relates back to something other than "will I make money?" But even then, you say:

When I mentioned QOL, I did not mean 9-5 even though that is what it partially entails. I meant that I would be able to afford to pay my mortgage, travel on my vacation days and be able to breathe outside air...develop a decent social life even if it is only with my law peers for a while. I envision for a almost perfect lawyer QOL that despite being stuck at my desk, there are people to talk to and things to smile about at the office. I don't want to be locked and chained to my desk. If you need me to work 12-15 hrs a day at least allow me to smile, walk around and have good decent conversations/building relationships.

The bolded, again, directly relates back to money.

As far as being chained to your desk goes, what do you imagine yourself doing for 12-15 hours a day if not, you know, working at a desk? Of course you're going to be chained to your desk. That's why they pay you so much money. No one's going to directly tell you that you're not allowed to smile (maybe at Sullivan Cromwell?), but you're not going to be strolling around the building shooting the shit with other associates.

"But none of this applies to me," you think, "because I'm going to be an AUSA." Okay, maybe, and that's a fairly lofty goal in contrast to "I'm going to get a job in biglaw from this T14," but even if you do manage to pull off AUSA after you've been in biglaw for a few years, congratulations, you've managed to pick up one of the lowest, if not THE lowest-paying attorney gigs within the federal government. JAG is even less - four years in and you're not even making 80k/year with (CONUS average) BAH included. You make the same amount of money as "liberal arts" OCS grads, except (1) the selection rate is 8% rather than 40%~, (2) you're missing 3-4 years towards your 20, and (3) you have more student debt.

[lillawyer2]

You're not really asking if law is rewarding, you're asking if you can make a lot of money in law. When you define "rewarding" as: lucrative, financially smart, great or good quality of life, good and improving market and mobility, literally only one of those four items (good quality of life) relates back to something other than "will I make money?" But even then, you say:

When I mentioned QOL, I did not mean 9-5 even though that is what it partially entails. I meant that I would be able to afford to pay my mortgage, travel on my vacation days and be able to breathe outside air...develop a decent social life even if it is only with my law peers for a while. I envision for a almost perfect lawyer QOL that despite being stuck at my desk, there are people to talk to and things to smile about at the office. I don't want to be locked and chained to my desk. If you need me to work 12-15 hrs a day at least allow me to smile, walk around and have good decent conversations/building relationships.

The bolded, again, directly relates back to money.

As far as being chained to your desk goes, what do you imagine yourself doing for 12-15 hours a day if not, you know, working at a desk? Of course you're going to be chained to your desk. That's why they pay you so much money. No one's going to directly tell you that you're not allowed to smile (maybe at Sullivan Cromwell?), but you're not going to be strolling around the building shooting the shit with other associates.

"But none of this applies to me," you think, "because I'm going to be an AUSA." Okay, maybe, and that's a fairly lofty goal in contrast to "I'm going to get a job in biglaw from this T14," but even if you do manage to pull off AUSA after you've been in biglaw for a few years, congratulations, you've managed to pick up one of the lowest, if not THE lowest-paying attorney gigs within the federal government. JAG is even less - four years in and you're not even making 80k/year with (CONUS average) BAH included. You make the same amount of money as "liberal arts" OCS grads, except (1) the selection rate is 8% rather than 40%~, (2) you're missing 3-4 years towards your 20, and (3) you have more student debt.

You're right a lot of it revolves or relates to money. I live in NYC where the QOL revolves heavily around how much you make. I can make $45k doing something I love, but it will only take me so far before I snap or have to switch careers and the something I love must turn into a hobby instead of a profession.

Granted, I'd be happy making $75k and doing what I love. As long as my debt is low, which is why I must retake for better scholarship :/. Mobility may not be that great, but I don't see myself leaving the tri-state area for work. So I think, if I attend a top school, I hope to be able to maneuver in NYC job market.

I should have been more specific to myself. By the time I attend Law school. I will have at least 30k in cash saved up and 10k in emergency money. So, financially I would think I'd be okay. I wouldn't be able to afford a penthouse, but I should be able to have something. I do know people with law jobs making $40-50k and this is not good. I do not think that if I bust my but to go to a top school that I can happily accept such a low paying job.

I think I need to rethink big law or rethink my plan, because I like litigation and would love AUSA or DA, but DA's to my knowledge do not get to spend time, well a lot of time, on individual cases, as they have a lot of cases in their load. If I could go from DA-->AUSA I would be very happy. I want to get into top school just to maximize my chances as AUSA. A desk job, one that I have now, is slowly killing me, but I am grateful to have such a job.

I think law school is lucrative, for me because currently I am saving a lot of money. I plan to do well on the lsat and get a lot of scholarship money, if this goes well, and I attend a top school. I would think everything would be okay, as long as I do not mess it up. I just get concerned. I think my concerns are reasonable. Most people have nothing good to say about this profession.

[Clemenceau]

You have to expect to land in a desk job as a lawyer

[lillawyer2]

You have to expect to land in a desk job as a lawyer

I do understand that I have to do work at my desk, but a "desk job," where a desk is necessary and sufficient to do my job sounds terrible to me. I like AUSA's and DA's because they get a breathe of fresh air and they have the investigations/detective "moving/shaking" aspect of their job as well as desk work, which is inevitable for most professions. I just can't be expected to sit at my desk all day, everyday for 6 months. I need a change in scenery and a break in routine.

[twenty]

Obviously TCR is still going to be bust your butt on the LSAT no matter what you do. A lot of people take a route that involves 3-4 years of biglaw that they "put up" with in order to gain experience (side note: also money) valued by transitional employers.

I actually don't think law, as a profession, is that bad - the problem is that you're almost setting yourself up to be disappointed. If you're working difficult hours doing mundane work and feel trapped, biglaw is going to be that, except worse. If you dream of going to an NYC DA's office, prepare to volunteer for 1+ years post graduation just to get in the door, because right now selection rate varies between .5% and 1.6%. Starting salary is 62k/year, and the hours are only marginally better than biglaw. From your last couple posts, it sounds like you're looking for this perfect unicorn job where you can (1) work reasonable hours, (2) make "lucrative" money (which for tri-state area is kind of relative), and (3) do prestigious litigation. Basically, pick 1-2 of those three, and that's pretty accurate.

edit>

I just can't be expected to sit at my desk all day, everyday for 6 months.

Actually, I take it back, law is probably a bad idea for you almost across the board, then. :/ Maybe JAG, but even that is going to be a lot of sitting at your desk all day every day.