Law School Discussion

Law Students => Current Law Students => Topic started by: where the summer dude? on April 09, 2006, 05:03:33 AM

Title: poor lawyers
Post by: where the summer dude? on April 09, 2006, 05:03:33 AM
How come I've never met a poor lawyer .. they all seem to be rich .. yet some people here say that many lawyers dont really make much money ??
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: tamika on April 09, 2006, 05:08:22 AM
My undergrad major was criminology. I had a few adjunct profs. who were lawyers by day. They mostly worked for the state. They all complained about massive loans and drove pretty crummy cars. I'm sure they weren't there for fun, but were teaching to make ends meet.

Maybe lawyers that are poor don't like to advertise the fact they're poor lawyers?
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: marista on April 09, 2006, 06:36:12 AM
There are tons of poor lawyers. In DC, most gov't, small firm and PI lawyers start somewhere around $45K. After taxes, that's $30K. When you subtract another $1K/month for loan payments and $1K/month for rent/utilities(in the ghetto), that leaves only $6K for everything else. I don't know how people live on $500/month. I spend $1K/month on food alone.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Erapitt on April 09, 2006, 07:07:44 AM
There are tons of poor lawyers. In DC, most gov't, small firm and PI lawyers start somewhere around $45K. After taxes, that's $30K. When you subtract another $1K/month for loan payments and $1K/month for rent/utilities(in the ghetto), that leaves only $6K for everything else. I don't know how people live on $500/month. I spend $1K/month on food alone.

How many people are you feeding with $1K a month?  That is assinine.  You can feed a family of four steaks twice a week and still spend well under $1K/month.   
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Leaf2001br on April 09, 2006, 07:02:14 PM
How come I've never met a poor lawyer .. they all seem to be rich .. yet some people here say that many lawyers dont really make much money ??

I suppose the obvious answer to this is that it all depends on your definition of "poor".  The field of "Law" covers an immensely wide range of practices and careers that touch every aspect of society.  In this way it is unlike any other "specialized" degree.  Naturally, with so many different ways to practice law, the salaries are sure to vary greatly.  However, keep in mind that the upside of this is that a law degree provides a diverse menu of potential career paths.  Many lawyers who aren't making the big bucks  have chosen not to in favor of doing something they prefer applying their efforts to.  Also, most salaries do increase over time.  I will say that I don't know many old poor lawyers.

But again, it's all relative.  Are you considered a poor lawyer if you don't make $100,000 a year?  $75,000?  $60,000? Or if you don't drive a German car?  And are you really living luxuriously if you are working over 90 hours a week?  This topic is discussed as nauseum on these boards, so I'm sure you can look around and form your own opinion. There are also many objective salary surveys available on the internet if you'd like to try to draw your conclusions from somewhere other than know-it-all law students who have never practiced law a day in their life.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Happy_Weasel on April 09, 2006, 07:55:46 PM
I guess you are poor if:


(Average Lawyer Salary per Dept of Labor*.80)*(Local Costs of Living/National Average Cost of Living)


Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: mmom on April 10, 2006, 06:33:15 AM
There are tons of poor lawyers. In DC, most gov't, small firm and PI lawyers start somewhere around $45K. After taxes, that's $30K. When you subtract another $1K/month for loan payments and $1K/month for rent/utilities(in the ghetto), that leaves only $6K for everything else. I don't know how people live on $500/month. I spend $1K/month on food alone.

As far as the loan payments are concerned: you don't have to pay $1,000 a month, lenders have income-sensitive repayment plans in place.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: ppan on April 10, 2006, 06:35:56 AM
There are tons of poor lawyers. In DC, most gov't, small firm and PI lawyers start somewhere around $45K. After taxes, that's $30K. When you subtract another $1K/month for loan payments and $1K/month for rent/utilities(in the ghetto), that leaves only $6K for everything else. I don't know how people live on $500/month. I spend $1K/month on food alone.

As far as the loan payments are concerned: you don't have to pay $1,000 a month, lenders have income-sensitive repayment plans in place.

When you say "Income sensitive repayment plans," what are you talking about? Stretching your loans out over 30 years? Hardship defermnets?
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: manna on April 10, 2006, 07:05:40 AM

[...] and $1K/month for rent/utilities (in the ghetto), that leaves only $6K for everything else. [...]


I pay currently $1,000 a month for rent and utilities and I do not live in the ghetto .. in fact I live in a very nice area of the city (Chicago)
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: karl on April 10, 2006, 07:10:15 AM

I pay currently $1,000 a month for rent and utilities and I do not live in the ghetto .. in fact I live in a very nice area of the city (Chicago)


Studio or 1-BR?
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: nature on April 10, 2006, 07:15:11 AM
First-year jobs always pay the least, in any profession. Do well and you'll work yourself up. IMO, unless you're willing to accept the bare-ass average starting salary in your location, you should reconsider the investment of a legal education.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: silvercannonca on April 10, 2006, 08:29:46 AM
Law school was a terrible financial mistake, and I am certainly poor compared to where I was before I went to law school.  I now make $50,000 a year, drive a 1990 car, and live in an efficiency.  With that $50,000 I have to pay $1300 a month in student loans, then there's the taxes, and dry cleaning bills (not cheap when you can't wear shorts and jeans anymore), plus work 60 hours a week for an a-hole.  The first few years out of law school are really awful.  At least in school you are getting financial aid, when you are done, the credit card balance shoots up because you need to pay for the bar, study materials, job interviews, buy a new wardrobe, etc.  I worked full time up until a week before the bar, so there wasn't any accumulating debt while 'studying' for three months.  Do I feel poor.  hell yeah.  no hope for buying a house in the D.C. area for several years yet, no new car, and working my ass off for a bad quality of life.  I'm I poor, well, no, but certainly not as well off as I would have been had I never gone to law school.  Right now, after I pay rent and loans, my left over spending money is about $300 for everything else.  It's all relative. 
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Erapitt on April 10, 2006, 08:48:41 AM
Law school was a terrible financial mistake, and I am certainly poor compared to where I was before I went to law school.  I now make $50,000 a year, drive a 1990 car, and live in an efficiency.  With that $50,000 I have to pay $1300 a month in student loans, then there's the taxes, and dry cleaning bills (not cheap when you can't wear shorts and jeans anymore), plus work 60 hours a week for an not so nice person.  The first few years out of law school are really awful.  At least in school you are getting financial aid, when you are done, the credit card balance shoots up because you need to pay for the bar, study materials, job interviews, buy a new wardrobe, etc.  I worked full time up until a week before the bar, so there wasn't any accumulating debt while 'studying' for three months.  Do I feel poor.  hell yeah.  no hope for buying a house in the D.C. area for several years yet, no new car, and working my ass off for a bad quality of life.  I'm I poor, well, no, but certainly not as well off as I would have been had I never gone to law school.  Right now, after I pay rent and loans, my left over spending money is about $300 for everything else.  It's all relative. 


Where did you attend law school and what was your class standing if I may ask?
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: burger king university on April 10, 2006, 08:49:06 AM
Law school was a terrible financial mistake, and I am certainly poor compared to where I was before I went to law school.  I now make $50,000 a year, drive a 1990 car, and live in an efficiency.  With that $50,000 I have to pay $1300 a month in student loans, then there's the taxes, and dry cleaning bills (not cheap when you can't wear shorts and jeans anymore), plus work 60 hours a week for an not so nice person.  The first few years out of law school are really awful.  At least in school you are getting financial aid, when you are done, the credit card balance shoots up because you need to pay for the bar, study materials, job interviews, buy a new wardrobe, etc.  I worked full time up until a week before the bar, so there wasn't any accumulating debt while 'studying' for three months.  Do I feel poor.  hell yeah.  no hope for buying a house in the D.C. area for several years yet, no new car, and working my ass off for a bad quality of life.  I'm I poor, well, no, but certainly not as well off as I would have been had I never gone to law school.  Right now, after I pay rent and loans, my left over spending money is about $300 for everything else.  It's all relative. 

Do you mind me asking where you went to school and what you do now?
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: silvercannonca on April 10, 2006, 02:17:16 PM
I went to George Washington in D.C., was on law review, moot court, graduated with honors, and did a judicial clerkship.  I'm doing corporate litigation now.  but, i only started doing this 3 months ago and the clerkship was of zero help.  I would advise people to not fall for the law school career service people push to do a clerkship.  if you've  another offer in an area of law you like, take it!  the clerkship was of no help to me or any of the other clerks that worked at the court when i did (federal).  if you've the paper to get the clerkship, you also have the paper to get started working.  if you went to stanford and graduated top 10%, you get the big firm job regardless of the clerkship.  if you didn't, you are really looking regardless. 

Don't get me wrong, i really like what i'm doing, but financially, it sucks
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Erapitt on April 10, 2006, 02:56:03 PM
I think this is a troll thread.  There is no way you were GW law review, top of your class, wanted biglaw, and are now making $50K per year lol.

I make more than that now working for the government.

Quit trolling.  Top 10% at Catholic would get you a great job, let alone honors at GW.




OK... I just read through your posts.  You are the same retard that said brought us such insights as "No Yale, No State," and also stated that people get good jobs out of GULC because of mommy and daddy hahahha.  Your entire account exists to irritate people and now that it is known, nobody will pay anymore attention to you troll.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: T. Durden on April 10, 2006, 03:40:24 PM
my neighbor is a GW 3L

he is on law review

he is leaving DC to start work in NYC - he will be starting at 145k / year come august

this isn't speculation / guess work / hearsay, etc. - this is fact

but yeah his life as afucntional human being is over and he knows it  - he will be billing 2100 hours next year whic means that he is working 70 (+) hours a week

welcome to the "good life"
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Happy_Weasel on April 10, 2006, 04:50:21 PM
All I really want to do is to make like 60 or 70 out of law school...I wonder if I can do that coming out of a TTT. I have a family so I just can't accept anyone under 55k.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Erapitt on April 10, 2006, 05:53:10 PM
Dude, you can make over 55K in a normal job.  By the time I graduate law school I will likely be a GS-13 making around 75-80K per year.  That is government and not as a lawyer.  If you can't make 55K a year you need to re-evaluate your skills.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: ll on April 11, 2006, 04:42:32 AM

I suppose the obvious answer to this is that it all depends on your definition of "poor". 


Exactly! Poverty depends on so many factors. Someone with no loans, no kids, in an inexpensive city will be extremely well off with 50-60K. Add a stay at home wife, 2 kids, move him to NY, LA, or Miami, and add a nice $750 monthly loan payment .... it's a completely different story.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: shalom on April 11, 2006, 05:23:32 AM
My undergrad major was criminology. I had a few adjunct profs. who were lawyers by day. They mostly worked for the state. They all complained about massive loans and drove pretty crummy cars. I'm sure they weren't there for fun, but were teaching to make ends meet.

Maybe lawyers that are poor don't like to advertise the fact they're poor lawyers?

Salaries for government lawyers generally are lower than for their private practice counterparts, with median annual salaries for entry-level government lawyers around $38,000. Yet perks such as pensions, loan repayment assistance (under certain circumstances), mentoring opportunities, flextime, and predictable work schedules can outweigh the lower compensation.

Government lawyers seem to enjoy the best of both worlds. Working for the government—whether as a prosecutor, public defender, attorney for an agency or department, or military officer in the JAG's Corps — enables you to practice law, serve your country, and have time to maintain some balance in your life.
Title: If Only I Had Known Then
Post by: shalom on April 11, 2006, 05:36:44 AM
[...]

4. Don't be seduced by the headlines that read, "entry-level lawyer salaries top $100,000." Your future salary as a lawyer is primarily dependent on the clients that you serve. According to the National Association for Law Placement, jobs and J.D.'s Employment and Salaries of New Law Graduates, Class of 1998 (hereafter Class of 1998 Report), the median starting salary for members of the Class of 1998 was $45,000 with salaries of $70,000 or more being the exception versus the rule. It may surprise many students to learn that $40,000 and $30,000 were the most frequently reported salaries in the Class of 1998 Report. Individuals who serve corporate clients earned more than individuals serving indigent persons (median salary of $60,000 versus median salary of $31,000); and the median salary for government positions was $36,000.

5. If you are interested in pursuing a position in the private sector, you will most likely work for a law firm of 50 attorneys or less. More than 50% of the private sector entry-level positions for the Class of 1998 were in firms of .50 attorneys or less. Small law firms of 2-10 attorneys accounted for the largest percentage of the positions with more than 30% of all private sector positions. The median starting salaries for firms of this size is $37,000. For firms of 11-25 attorneys the median salary is $43,500, and for firms of 26-50 attorneys, $52,000. Hiring at law firms of 100+ attorneys has increased over the past few years with approximately one-third of the Class of 1998 obtaining positions with these firms. The starting salaries have increased as well with the median salary for firms of 101-250 attorneys at $62,000; 251-500 attorneys at $85,000 and firms of more than 500 attorneys at $90,000. One should not count on obtaining one of these positions. Hiring criteria for these firms are very strict and usually confined to the students in the top 10% - 20% of their class and to those who hold law review membership. In addition, we do not know how long the current hiring trend for the larger firms will continue. In the late 1980's/early 1990's the economy changed—many lawyers were laid off—it could always happen again.

6. From a financial standpoint plan to be in the middle of the class versus the top 10%. Be aware that the average law student graduates with more than $50,000 in debt. A recent article in the American Bar Association journal reported that the Nellie Mae Corporation found "lawyers who have been out of school between one and three years made an average of $37,200 in 1996 but had average educational related debt of $52,600." (June 1999) The monthly repayment amount on this debt would be more than $650.00 per month (at a 9% interest rate). This means that more than one-third of an individual's monthly income is going to this one item alone! Another way to look at this -- if you purchase a pizza every week at an average cost of $15.00 with loan money, that pizza will actually cost you $27.00 at the end of ten years. Do you really need that pizza every week?

Often law students expect a large payoff in terms of salary when they graduate and feel entitled to treat themselves well during school. DO NOT DO THIS. The payoff is not immediate upon graduation and you may experience a lifestyle that is very different from what you imagined once you have graduated. Therefore, my advice is to "live like a law student while a student." This means borrowing as little money as you can to finance your legal education, limiting credit card and other debt, learning what it means to borrow $30,000, and being careful how you spend your money.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~rcoas/prelaw/ifonlyfinal.pdf
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: silvercannonca on April 11, 2006, 12:25:26 PM
You're right!  No Yale No State was definately meant to be taken literally, and absolutely, every single person that graduates top 20% of their class will start out making $100,000+ ...hope that's not too irritating for those that want to be reassured it's all roses. 
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: barney0361 on April 11, 2006, 02:15:17 PM

[...] and $1K/month for rent/utilities (in the ghetto), that leaves only $6K for everything else. [...]


I pay currently $1,000 a month for rent and utilities and I do not live in the ghetto .. in fact I live in a very nice area of the city (Chicago)

And I pay $750 for half of a two bedroom in DC. Also not in the ghetto.

 
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Happy_Weasel on April 11, 2006, 05:38:14 PM
How come my school has a 25th to 75th of 33 to 88, then? and its TTT though Denver and Colorado are about the same.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: barney0361 on April 11, 2006, 08:39:44 PM
Schools self report their salary data.

Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Happy_Weasel on April 11, 2006, 10:37:20 PM
yeah, so. Must students report their salaries.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Erapitt on April 12, 2006, 04:38:25 AM
That isn't true.  If you ask the career office, usually the salary data is based on something around 60-75% of reported salaries.  The salary data is worthless since those not reporting are likely those with the lowest paying jobs.
Title: Re: If Only I Had Known Then
Post by: Kazzzzzzzzaaam on April 12, 2006, 05:18:25 AM
[...]

4. Don't be seduced by the headlines that read, "entry-level lawyer salaries top $100,000." Your future salary as a lawyer is primarily dependent on the clients that you serve. According to the National Association for Law Placement, jobs and J.D.'s Employment and Salaries of New Law Graduates, Class of 1998 (hereafter Class of 1998 Report), the median starting salary for members of the Class of 1998 was $45,000 with salaries of $70,000 or more being the exception versus the rule. It may surprise many students to learn that $40,000 and $30,000 were the most frequently reported salaries in the Class of 1998 Report. Individuals who serve corporate clients earned more than individuals serving indigent persons (median salary of $60,000 versus median salary of $31,000); and the median salary for government positions was $36,000.

5. If you are interested in pursuing a position in the private sector, you will most likely work for a law firm of 50 attorneys or less. More than 50% of the private sector entry-level positions for the Class of 1998 were in firms of .50 attorneys or less. Small law firms of 2-10 attorneys accounted for the largest percentage of the positions with more than 30% of all private sector positions. The median starting salaries for firms of this size is $37,000. For firms of 11-25 attorneys the median salary is $43,500, and for firms of 26-50 attorneys, $52,000. Hiring at law firms of 100+ attorneys has increased over the past few years with approximately one-third of the Class of 1998 obtaining positions with these firms. The starting salaries have increased as well with the median salary for firms of 101-250 attorneys at $62,000; 251-500 attorneys at $85,000 and firms of more than 500 attorneys at $90,000. One should not count on obtaining one of these positions. Hiring criteria for these firms are very strict and usually confined to the students in the top 10% - 20% of their class and to those who hold law review membership. In addition, we do not know how long the current hiring trend for the larger firms will continue. In the late 1980's/early 1990's the economy changed—many lawyers were laid off—it could always happen again.

6. From a financial standpoint plan to be in the middle of the class versus the top 10%. Be aware that the average law student graduates with more than $50,000 in debt. A recent article in the American Bar Association journal reported that the Nellie Mae Corporation found "lawyers who have been out of school between one and three years made an average of $37,200 in 1996 but had average educational related debt of $52,600." (June 1999) The monthly repayment amount on this debt would be more than $650.00 per month (at a 9% interest rate). This means that more than one-third of an individual's monthly income is going to this one item alone! Another way to look at this -- if you purchase a pizza every week at an average cost of $15.00 with loan money, that pizza will actually cost you $27.00 at the end of ten years. Do you really need that pizza every week?

Often law students expect a large payoff in terms of salary when they graduate and feel entitled to treat themselves well during school. DO NOT DO THIS. The payoff is not immediate upon graduation and you may experience a lifestyle that is very different from what you imagined once you have graduated. Therefore, my advice is to "live like a law student while a student." This means borrowing as little money as you can to finance your legal education, limiting credit card and other debt, learning what it means to borrow $30,000, and being careful how you spend your money.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~rcoas/prelaw/ifonlyfinal.pdf

That salary info is way outdated.  The large firms in my area across the board moved starting associate salaries from around $95,000 to $125,000, and many are considering raising once again in the next couple of years.  I imagine if you look at old NALP data that will be similar across the board in desirable large and small markets.  In addition to that, if you look at alot of the firms where making partner is a realitic goal, many of those same graduates of 1998 are either new partners, or soon to make it this year, and will be looking at even higher numbers.  Then again, anyone going into law for financial reasons alone is a fool.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Happy_Weasel on April 12, 2006, 12:22:37 PM
Yeah. Even popular culture reflects this. In the movie, the Firm, the best law graduate in the country was making only 96,000, AFTER selling his soul.(A  good student from an average school like myself should be able to make that much if they work really hard in law school for the Holland and Hart interviews the top quarter at my school). Also, other information supports this. Average lawyers from my school were making like 30,000 in the private sector, now the average is 58,000 when about 30 of the 36 lawyers reported their salaries. I would say that new associate salaries have doubled in the last 5 years.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: florida357 on April 12, 2006, 01:14:35 PM
I think this is a troll thread.  There is no way you were GW law review, top of your class, wanted biglaw, and are now making $50K per year lol.

I make more than that now working for the government.

Quit trolling.  Top 10% at Catholic would get you a great job, let alone honors at GW.




OK... I just read through your posts.  You are the same retard that said brought us such insights as "No Yale, No State," and also stated that people get good jobs out of GULC because of mommy and daddy hahahha.  Your entire account exists to irritate people and now that it is known, nobody will pay anymore attention to you troll.

This guy hasn't even started school yet, and he thinks he can tell law students what is what.....
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: rich dad poor dad on April 12, 2006, 01:19:26 PM
;)
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Erapitt on April 12, 2006, 01:38:10 PM
I think this is a troll thread.  There is no way you were GW law review, top of your class, wanted biglaw, and are now making $50K per year lol.

I make more than that now working for the government.

Quit trolling.  Top 10% at Catholic would get you a great job, let alone honors at GW.




OK... I just read through your posts.  You are the same retard that said brought us such insights as "No Yale, No State," and also stated that people get good jobs out of GULC because of mommy and daddy hahahha.  Your entire account exists to irritate people and now that it is known, nobody will pay anymore attention to you troll.

This guy hasn't even started school yet, and he thinks he can tell law students what is what.....


Yeah, I'm only a professional in the REAL world that sees how things work.  You are a moron.  I love how you sheltered 23 year olds that have ZERO work experience think you know what is what.  FL, get over yourself.  I have already dealt with your dumba@@
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: florida357 on April 12, 2006, 01:46:01 PM
Erapitt, I have never had a full-time summer associate postion, but I have plenty of work experience.  I got paid $1800 for one weeks work this semester, I wrote a trial brief for a firm out of Miami.  I have also done work for another firm, as well as pro bono work for a case that settled for $2 million. 

I have gotten through two years of law school, and passed the patent bar. 

YOU HAVEN'T EVEN HAD YOUR FIRST LAW SCHOOL CLASS!!!  you call everyone on this site names, and act like you know everything.  I can't wait until you get to lawschool. hahaha.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: T. Durden on April 12, 2006, 02:15:15 PM
how did you prep for the patent bar?

is it difficult?

i will be taking it this summer
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Erapitt on April 12, 2006, 02:30:23 PM
Florida... You are the one that got all tough guyish and started calling names.  Its easy to talk trash when you won't be around to see how I do.  Also, I already have a job, likely making more than you will out of law school so keep your "hahahaha" to yourself you loser.

Besides, if I recall, you claim that you aren't going to practice after law school.  Oh.... $1800 for a week.... Don't get all high and mighty as that isn't even market rate hot shot.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: lipper on April 12, 2006, 03:02:29 PM
wow, as a seasoned professional in the REAL WORLD, Erapitt sure is acting like a child.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: florida357 on April 12, 2006, 03:23:47 PM
$1800/week is on the high side of market rate for a summer associate even in cities like DC and Atlanta, summer associates in medium size cities such as Charlotte or Richmond commonly make 1100-1500.  Shows how much you know.

Anyway, this is lame.  The fact that you don't see anything wrong with what you do is indicative of your character.  You haven't sat through a single law school class, yet you think you are qualified to determine who should and shouldn't be in lawschool, and who chose the wrong school?  You know nothing about lawschool.  You think you can bash everyone who goes to a school ranked below GW, yet you call people who prefer the T14 arrogant?  You are exactly like those people. 

People like you amuse me.  You spend your whole lives convincing yourself that you are better than other people because of your pay check, or your degree, or your school... You register at a law forum and tell seasoned law students that they will be ambulance chasers?  thats lame bro.  when I was in your position, the summer before I started law school, I was listening and learning and taking in everything I could.  You are already talking about why you are better than other people. 

My buddy was an engineer a year younger than me; one of the smartest, most humble, charismatic people I have ever met.  He had a personal tragedy the week before the october LSAT and made a 144.  You show up here and say anyone below 150 shouldn't be able to get a law degree?  What makes you think you are qualified to dictate that?



In the end, I have to thank you.  I drove home today with a smile on my face.  I didn't get mad at a single person who cut me off, or ran a light.  I went to the grocery store and bought some beer, the cashier screwed up and it took like 10 minutes to ring me up.  She said 'sir, I am so sorry' and I said 'no problem, have a great evening.'  Thats because you reminded me what a awful person is like, and I don't want to be anything like you.  You would have sat there for ten minutes and been thinking about how you were better than that 35 year old cashier, maybe even started yelling or asked for a manager.  People like you make the world a worse place, and lead sad, miserable lives. 


Have fun at GW.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Erapitt on April 12, 2006, 04:41:22 PM
What planet are you living on?  Market rate in DC, NYC, and other major city is $2400/week and it looks as if it may be going up once the 1st year associate salaries increase this year.

You are oh so wise.  Gimme a break.  I know how it is in the real world and have family and friends in the legal profession.  I work with lawyers on a regular basis and whether you want to admit it or not, ranking does matter in terms of job prospects and when you are looking into tens of thousands of dollars that needs to be addressed.

My life is just fine.  The way I act to jerkoffs such as yourself is in no way indicative of how I am on a daily basis.  I have a wonderful wife, a great job, as well as a family and friends support system that I feel privelaged to have.

I simply don't have time for people like you.  You are a hypocrit.  You spent the entire evening yesterday calling me names and badmouthing me, then you go and comment about how terrible I am for coming back at you.

Is your friend's story supposed to touch me?  Your friend should have not taken the exam if he had other things on his mind, but even though he went through with it, he could always retest and if he scores more than 10 points higher most schools take the higher score.  My comment about those below a 150 related to those that hold onto and do no better than a 150 LSAT and I still hold that belief.  The market IS saturated.  You go to a middle of the road regional school so you are able to find jobs.  That doesn't mean those flooding out of Cooley or Roger Williams can do the same.  Medical school, dental school, doctoral programs.... even chiropractic programs have limits on who may enter and who may not.  Yet, for some unknown reason, people feel it is their right to attend law school.

Your argument is filled with holes and is nothing but a bitter rant.

Oh.... I AM better than you.  It doesn't need to be said.  It is just the way it is  .
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: T. Durden on April 12, 2006, 04:44:16 PM
tis true

GW is gunnertopia

florida

whast the story on the patent bar - i'm taking it this summer while also working as a judicial intern for a judge

can i realistically prepare for this thing while working also? the CDO told me that the test requires 200 hours of prep time, this strikes me as severe - is it really that hard? please gimme a heads up
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: florida357 on April 12, 2006, 04:50:32 PM
tis true

GW is gunnertopia

florida

whast the story on the patent bar - i'm taking it this summer while also working as a judicial intern for a judge

can i realistically prepare for this thing while working also? the CDO told me that the test requires 200 hours of prep time, this strikes me as severe - is it really that hard? please gimme a heads up

I studied for 6 weeks and took 9 practice tests, passed on the first try.  The thing about the patent bar is that they are not releasing the old questions anymore. pre-2003 the test was on paper and the questions were released with the scores, 30-70% of the questions were always repeats.  Since they computerized the test, they don't release the questions, which makes it a lot harder.  I wouldn't be surprised if I barely passed.  My one piece of advice is to take the october 2003 exam last, a day or two before the real thing, I almost didn't take it because it had the lowest national pass rate of any of the tests that are available.  When I got to the test almost all of the repeats were from that exam, so I was really glad I did that one. 
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: alwaystheunderdog on April 13, 2006, 11:58:07 AM
FL, while i agree with you and think erapit is a male private part...why are you both copying and pasting your arguments from another post.  do either of you think that posting the same arguments on this post as oposed to that post makes your argument stronger or does anyhting but put both of you in the spotlight.  c'mon if you guys want to keep bickering, do it on that thread, no one wants to see this *&^% on every topic

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,4130.0.html
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: locus on April 15, 2006, 06:07:27 PM
florida is THE MAN here, no doubt about it!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: alice.tolkas on April 15, 2006, 06:42:17 PM
  Hey, I just want to come to the defense of my fella! All of you "Erappit" haters out there: get a life! The "Big E", although he can be quite brash, is really not such a tough guy when you get to know him. For example, last week, after we made love and after he had opened his heart to me, he became quite emotional, and we held each other until the sun came up. He then cooked me breakfast and took my poodle for a walk. He returned home carrying a small Teddy Bear and a Garfield cup with my name on it. Okay, for all you "macho" lawyer types this may not be "cool", but it *does* evince what a special, tender, and caring human being Erappit is. Florida, can you honestly say that you have nurtured and fed over 100 stray cats, or that you have participated in a woman's march? And you, Big Rig, have you ever counseled gay and lesbian youth about their relationships? Bathed and groomed elderly people in an inner city elder care facility? Well, my fella has! Yes, my Erappit, one of the softest, kindest men I know. In many ways he's just like one of my girlfriends. So, to all you E-haters: LEAVE MY COOKIEBUM alone!    :-* :'(
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: erinbrockovich on April 17, 2006, 02:18:48 PM
??
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: giraffe205 on April 17, 2006, 07:39:10 PM
Florida, I'm w/ you on this one. Erapitt may think he knows what's up. Sad thing is that once he starts going to school his head will only get bigger. It's the ones who think they know everything that truly know very little. Hopefully, there will be a senior partner from some TTT to put him in his place. ("Although law school attended correlates highly with salary, it is not the entire story; some 15–18% of those working in the largest private offices in NYC and in other major metropolitan areas graduated from schools that are relatively low in selectivity."- After the JD study by NALP).

Getting back on topic. Here's some interesting info from the NALP Foundation, p. 39-43 (published in 2004), available at http://www.nalpfoundation.org/webmodules/articles/articlefiles/87-After_JD_2004_web.pdf

The median income of the full-time lawyers in the sample is $73,000.This figure appears relatively high for new lawyers, given that the Current Population Survey of 2002 indicated a nationwide median income for all lawyers of $85,000.11 These relatively high figures for new lawyers may reflect the dramatic escalation of lawyers’ starting salaries in the mid-1990s and/or some compression of salaries over time in certain practice settings.Recent studies also suggest a widening of the gap generally between high-earning lawyers and those at the lower end of the income spectrum (Heinz, Nelson, Laumann, and Sandefur, forthcoming 2005).

Consistent with that pattern, the median figure in the AJD study of $73,000 already conceals an enormous range of incomes.About 25%of the attorneys in the sample reported incomes of more than $110,000 (and 10% were over $150,000),while another 25% reported incomes below $50,000.

TABLE 5.1. Salary by Setting of AJD Respondents (full-time workers only)
Salary — Median
Salary — Percentile 25
Salary — Percentile 75

Solo $55,000 $45,000 $75,000
Office of 2-20 lawyers 60,000 48,500 78,000
Office of 21-100 lawyers 97,000 78,000 132,500
Office of 101-250 lawyers 125,000 96,000 145,000
Office of 251+ lawyers 140,000 125,000 158,000
Federal government (including judiciary) 63,000 54,275 70,000
State or local government (including judiciary) 45,000 40,000 53,500
Legal services or public defender 40,100 36,000 45,000
Public interest organization 38,500 34,000 48,000
Other nonprofit organization 51,650 42,000 69,500
Educational institution 51,800 43,000 70,000
Professional service firm (e.g., accounting or
investment banking)
77,500 61,000 110,000
Other Fortune 1000 industry/service 84,000 63,000 120,000
Other business/industry 75,500 60,000 100,000
Labor union trade association 71,200 46,200 90,000
Other (specify) 40,200 33,000 47,400
TOTAL 73,000 50,000 110,000
Note: Much of the variation between practice settings displayed in this table is also accounted for by geographic variations.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: TM on April 19, 2006, 04:24:37 AM
giraffe, I would take the NALP publication with a grain of salt
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: substantianigra on April 19, 2006, 04:37:07 AM

I pay currently $1,000 a month for rent and utilities and I do not live in the ghetto .. in fact I live in a very nice area of the city (Chicago)


Studio or 1-BR?

;)
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: silvercannonca on April 19, 2006, 02:06:47 PM
I agree on the NALP postings, especially is you are in a lawyer tier school.  If you are at the lower tier, which is most law students, then NALP firms only allow the top 15% of the class to even apply.  If you get into Stanford, Georgetown, etc., then NALP is more accurate to your situation.  If you didn't, then remember, NALP firms aren't hiring the lower tier, middle of the pack class rank students. 
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: ckr on April 21, 2006, 03:41:48 AM

I pay currently $1,000 a month for rent and utilities and I do not live in the ghetto .. in fact I live in a very nice area of the city (Chicago)


Studio or 1-BR?

Also, do you live alone or with a roommate?
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: giraffe205 on April 21, 2006, 12:50:30 PM
I agree on the NALP postings, especially is you are in a lawyer tier school.  If you are at the lower tier, which is most law students, then NALP firms only allow the top 15% of the class to even apply.  If you get into Stanford, Georgetown, etc., then NALP is more accurate to your situation.  If you didn't, then remember, NALP firms aren't hiring the lower tier, middle of the pack class rank students. 

The study doesn't only look at NALP firms but solo practitioners, judicial clerkships, gov't positions, etc. which typically do not appear on NALP. If you go to the actual report you will find that the data seems pretty legit considering it was published in 2004. I'm sure the NALP Foundation made an honest effort to study the hiring effect throughout the broad range of employers on lower tier and higher tier schools alike. Most
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: 2006hereitcomes on April 21, 2006, 09:59:46 PM
Phenomenal document thank you
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: silvercannonca on April 22, 2006, 10:33:41 AM
Rock on giraffe, I spoke before I looked. 
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: improve on April 22, 2006, 11:55:12 PM
First of all, I suppose that how you define a "poor lawyer" depends on your definition of poor. As someone said below, many state employees (prosecutors, public defenders, public interest lawyers) may make below $40,000 depending on location. While that may be miniscule in comparison to some corporate big wig making 5 million a year, you have to recognize that even $40,000 is more than nearly everyone else in the world lives off. So, in reality, that is not really a realistic definition of poor.

If money is important to you, congrats ... you've chosen a good profession. Pretty much everyone I've met at law school is here to get a high paying job, and I suppose the idea of being rich is what enables them to get through each day of hell ... I mean, law school.

However, for me, my only motivating factor for staying in law school is the idea that I will one day be able to help others, and hopefully society by working in public interest law. While I may be making 1/4 or even 1/8 of what my fellow classmates will be pulling in each year, I definitely do not think I will be "poorer" for it. Many times, especially in law school, I think people forget the importance of non-material aspects of life and the quality they can add to your life. Alright, since I'm certain pretty much everyone that reads this is going to think I'm ridiculous, I'll stop here. But just to respond to your question again ... you probably don't see many poor lawyers because they don't go to law school to get a job that doesn't pay them big bucks. Ok, enough said.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: sayousayme on April 23, 2006, 12:00:43 AM
First of all, I suppose that how you define a "poor lawyer" depends on your definition of poor. As someone said below, many state employees (prosecutors, public defenders, public interest lawyers) may make below $40,000 depending on location. While that may be miniscule in comparison to some corporate big wig making 5 million a year, you have to recognize that even $40,000 is more than nearly everyone else in the world lives off. So, in reality, that is not really a realistic definition of poor.

If money is important to you, congrats ... you've chosen a good profession. Pretty much everyone I've met at law school is here to get a high paying job, and I suppose the idea of being rich is what enables them to get through each day of hell ... I mean, law school.

However, for me, my only motivating factor for staying in law school is the idea that I will one day be able to help others, and hopefully society by working in public interest law. While I may be making 1/4 or even 1/8 of what my fellow classmates will be pulling in each year, I definitely do not think I will be "poorer" for it. Many times, especially in law school, I think people forget the importance of non-material aspects of life and the quality they can add to your life. Alright, since I'm certain pretty much everyone that reads this is going to think I'm ridiculous, I'll stop here. But just to respond to your question again ... you probably don't see many poor lawyers because they don't go to law school to get a job that doesn't pay them big bucks. Ok, enough said.

God bless you, improve. And from up top on the ivory tower I would agree with you to a large extent. But how old are you? Do you have a mortgage and a family yet? Did you pay for law school out of your own pocket? If not, I'm afraid you'll soon discover the importance of the "material" aspects of life.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: sofine on April 23, 2006, 12:16:02 AM

As far as the loan payments are concerned: you don't have to pay $1,000 a month, lenders have income-sensitive repayment plans in place.

When you say "Income sensitive repayment plans," what are you talking about? Stretching your loans out over 30 years? Hardship defermnets?

Income sensitive repayment means that instead of the term determining the size of your payments, payment amounts are determined based on a percentage of your income. This could mean a 30 yr term, or it could be more. Lenders allow this, but will ultimately try to get you on a different plan. It makes sense for a lot of people who are just starting out who assume they will make more down the road.
Title: Mercedes Benz
Post by: fr on April 23, 2006, 12:18:30 AM
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ?
Dialing For Dollars is trying to find me.
I wait for delivery each day until three,
So oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ?

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ?
I'm counting on you, Lord, please don't let me down.
Prove that you love me and buy the next round,
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ?

Everybody!

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends,
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?

That's it!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: lolla on April 23, 2006, 06:02:34 PM
Oh boy, even this was needed! As it was not enough the hell law students go through, now they have to take into account they're sacrificing years of their life in vain!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: pasha on April 29, 2006, 04:57:33 AM
Law school was a terrible financial mistake, and I am certainly poor compared to where I was before I went to law school.  I now make $50,000 a year, drive a 1990 car, and live in an efficiency.  With that $50,000 I have to pay $1300 a month in student loans, then there's the taxes, and dry cleaning bills (not cheap when you can't wear shorts and jeans anymore), plus work 60 hours a week for an not so nice person.  The first few years out of law school are really awful.  At least in school you are getting financial aid, when you are done, the credit card balance shoots up because you need to pay for the bar, study materials, job interviews, buy a new wardrobe, etc.  I worked full time up until a week before the bar, so there wasn't any accumulating debt while 'studying' for three months.  Do I feel poor.  hell yeah.  no hope for buying a house in the D.C. area for several years yet, no new car, and working my ass off for a bad quality of life.  I'm I poor, well, no, but certainly not as well off as I would have been had I never gone to law school.  Right now, after I pay rent and loans, my left over spending money is about $300 for everything else.  It's all relative. 

ARE YOU SERIOUS OR YOU ARE JUST KIDDING US?! BECAUSE IF YOU ARE SERIOUS I AM QUITTING LAW SCHOOL RIGHT AWAY! PLEASE TELL ME YOU ARE NOT!!!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: sean on April 30, 2006, 09:05:51 AM
[...]

It may surprise many students to learn that $40,000 and $30,000 were the most frequently reported salaries in the Class of 1998 Report. Individuals who serve corporate clients earned more than individuals serving indigent persons (median salary of $60,000 versus median salary of $31,000); and the median salary for government positions was $36,000.

5. If you are interested in pursuing a position in the private sector, you will most likely work for a law firm of 50 attorneys or less. More than 50% of the private sector entry-level positions for the Class of 1998 were in firms of .50 attorneys or less. Small law firms of 2-10 attorneys accounted for the largest percentage of the positions with more than 30% of all private sector positions. The median starting salaries for firms of this size is $37,000. For firms of 11-25 attorneys the median salary is $43,500, and for firms of 26-50 attorneys, $52,000. Hiring at law firms of 100+ attorneys has increased over the past few years with approximately one-third of the Class of 1998 obtaining positions with these firms.

How many years does it take for your salary to be in the $80-100K range if you work for a small firm or the government?
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: an other on April 30, 2006, 09:43:27 AM

How many years does it take for your salary to be in the $80-100K range if you work for a small firm or the government?


You won't be able to make good money working for a small firm unless you own that firm.

As small firms age, they take natural steps. First, the firm has more business than the founder(s) can handle. It adds associates (usually one or two) purely to handle the extra work and to allow the partners to make more money. Then the natural thing happens. The partners start enjoying their property and their investment. They begin to have the time and money to enjoy the pursuits money can bring. For the partners to maintain that income, and still have time to enjoy it, someone must do the work and get paid less than they are earning. It is the same in all levels of law firms. When you read of some senior partners working 500 hours a year, billing $200.00 an hour and averaging $650,000.00 a year you can bet it isn't coming from the hours they are working. (It isn't that common either!).

In a small law firm the financial loop is tighter. The associates in a small firm are not trading training and potential partnership against income. All the associate has to trade is work against losing the job. As time passes, associates find that they can't progress financially without the money coming out of the partners. It is a zero sum game where the hours worked, and the dollars in the firm, remain the same. It is only a question of who will be getting the money. The partners feel that they deserve what they have. They have worked hard, taken hard risks, and have built a practice that is theirs. They fought to get it and they will fight to keep it. And, all partners remember that 50% of small firms began when overworked associates left with a chunk of the client base. Which means that even the best founding partners are going to be protective of their clients and their contacts.

Sounds too familiar doesn't it? When you think about the complaints you've heard from friends in small offices, you can place almost every complaint as being caused by the pattern I'm talking about. So what should you do? That is the question facing the 75% of law school grads who end up in the kind of practice that law school ignores. Well, you can drop out of the practice of law. Between 40% and 50% of all law school graduates drop out. There are very real options to the practice of law. You can sue your law school for taking your money and not preparing you at all for the kind of practice of law that any idiot knows that you (and most of your friends) have to go in to. You will lose, but it might be cathartic, even if embarrassing. Or, you can take a rational approach. Be realistic. Be patient. Just because not a single professor in your law school has a clue as to how the real world works does not mean that there is not a solution.

The real question is what to do when you are trapped as an associate in a firm where no one makes partner and you get fired for pushing for raises. That is the real question most associates in small firms eventually ask. Just because you understand why your current situation seems like a dead end, doesn't mean you like it. No associate has to like the way small law firms naturally develop. No associate ever has. There are several rational things to do. The first thing to do is to take the long view. You put in 4 years in college and 3 in law school. Now is not the time to take the short term view. After 7 years you ought to be able to take the long view. In saying "take the long view" I'm not suggesting that you go back to school and start over. While you can take 2 more years of school and get an LLM you'll have the same problems all over again when you get out. Getting an MBA is just an invitation to grief as are many other career changes.

Begin by realizing that your current position is not permanent. There are changes in the status of associates that occur between 3-4 years into practice that are similar to the change in status that occurred between your 1st and 2d year of law school. You can either be prepared for those changes and succeed or not be prepared and end up perpetually frustrated. The first part of being prepared is knowing about where partners and senior associates at small and medium sized law firms come from. Contrary to popular opinion, the stork does not bring them. And most firms do not grow their own like cabbages behind the barn. Partners and senior associates get recruited -- not by law school grades and good looks, but on the basis of need and experience. Believe it or not, it is easy for other attorneys to see your work even if you are hidden in a closet. You start work at a small firm. The quality of work goes up, the quality goes down or stays the same. Given that hiring you is the only change, it doesn't matter if your name goes on the briefs or if you sign the pleadings. The change (or lack of change) reflects you. This means that attention to quality is important. Every time you feel cheated or upset, take some extra time and do a better job. It may be your bosses' money (they are paying you) but it is your reputation and skill that is getting better. Every time you have a choice between being ethical and being a slime, be ethical. It may be the firm's loss but it is your reputation for honesty that is being built. Every time you have the chance to do some court appointed work or to get involved with the bar, take the opportunity to meet people and to become involved.

Take a moment and think. You are in a situation where you deserve to be a partner. Unfortunately, all the partners in the firm graduated from law school together 6 years earlier than you did. You've got what it takes, but they are firmly in control of "their" property and don't see any reason to share. The feelings can get intense. As the news notes, in Texas they shoot each other. But who knows? You can become a partner with someone else in a firm who could not see making one of his associates a partner (or even giving them a decent raise). The attorney who offers you a job has lost, say, 10 associates. He could never see sharing either his firm with them or sharing his clients. But he could see it with someone who comes in from the outside, like you do. The trick to surviving the depressing, unforeseen and bleak times in a deadend job is to realize that the deadend is the firm's problem and not your problem. You've got a future and good hope for the long run if you don't ruin yourself. As long as you do not get a reputation for sloppy work, bad ethics or a bad attitude, nothing that happens to you while working for a small firm is going to hurt more than money and a partnership in a better firm won't heal. If you take the long view, more money and a partnership is exactly what you'll get. Everyone else has. 

The majority of people who find employment with a small firm find only "temporary" employment. Most small firms turnover somewhere between 6 months to 6 years. In a lawyer's words, 6 years after he had accepted a job, none of the firms he had interviewed at that time were still listed in Martindale-Hubble. Small firm attrition is no worse than large firm attrition. Usually turnover in large firms is from 20 - 25% of the associates each year. Stability in the practice of law comes from three things -- all of which you control. The three things are: competent legal work, sociability with other lawyers and client satisfaction. If your legal work is competent, if you get along well with other lawyers and if your clients like you and remember your name, then in the long run you will have as much stability in your legal practice as anyone else has (which may or may not be much).

Many of the concerns that apply to large firms do not apply to smaller ones. Training programs -- a prime factor in large firm decisions -- don't exist. Partnership tracks and qualifications -- crucially important in large firms -- are irrelevant, associates don't become partners in small firms (assuming the firm lasts that long). Other concerns are much more important. First is the quality of work -- a given for large firms. Next is sociality -- completely unimportant to large firms. Then is client contact and satisfaction -- generally an area alien to large firm associates. Finally, is the reasonableness of the number of hours worked -- a consideration completely foreign to large firm thinking and crucial to your ability to succeed in a small firm setting.

Many attorneys, given both the experience of large and small firms will choose small firm culture and life. There are strong economic reasons for this choice. Partners in small plaintiff's firms earn an average a little bit more than the partners at the large defense firms that oppose them. They also work fewer hours, take more vacations and have greater flexibility in who they have for clients and the type of work they do. Outside of money, there are rewards and freedoms to practicing in a small firm that are not fully disclosed in law school.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: fpa on April 30, 2006, 10:00:38 AM
Well, well, well, it looks like for competitive, socially-driven people going to work for a small firm still guarantees success and big money (not sarcastic!)
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: dsll on April 30, 2006, 10:03:43 AM
Well, well, well, it looks like for competitive, socially-driven people going to work for a small firm still guarantees success and big money (not sarcastic!)

definitely, fpa, law school opens doors to quite good money! Even some minority that goes to work for the government can expect earn $90-100K/yr in 5 years or so!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Erapitt on April 30, 2006, 10:30:47 AM
Well, well, well, it looks like for competitive, socially-driven people going to work for a small firm still guarantees success and big money (not sarcastic!)

definitely, fpa, law school opens doors to quite good money! Even some minority that goes to work for the government can expect earn $90-100K/yr in 5 years or so!


Too bad in DC (most likely where a lawyer can expect to work for the government) $90-100K is chump change and barely puts you at middle class.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: hotdiggity on April 30, 2006, 03:10:39 PM
there's nothing wrong with being middle class
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Erapitt on April 30, 2006, 03:42:55 PM
That wasn't my point.  My point is $90-100K in DC is middle class.  Add in a $1,000/month loan payment into the mix and you aren't even able to buy a home in this area.  A 2 BR Condo runs around $400K+ and that is a CONDO.  Homes start around $650K in a decent suburb, not to mention you will likely want your kids to go to private school since most Northern VA public schools are horrible.

I was just making a point that DC is overpriced and although it may seem like you will be making big bucks here, you won't be. 
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: ointment on April 30, 2006, 03:50:25 PM
Read it closer erapitt, that was the OP's point ... S/he is pulling the qouted poster's leg ...
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: sitonit on May 03, 2006, 04:13:36 AM
lol oint, I know what ya mean! ;)
Title: Lighten up everybody!
Post by: roberta on May 05, 2006, 05:55:04 AM
(http://misheli.image.pbase.com/v3/19/608719/1/51480843.reporteronewspy028.jpg)
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: wardwilliams on May 05, 2006, 06:52:18 AM
What type of government work will you be making 100K after 5 years?  I've never heard of that before.  I didn't even think US Attorneys made that after 5 years.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Erapitt on May 05, 2006, 03:18:57 PM
What type of government work will you be making 100K after 5 years?  I've never heard of that before.  I didn't even think US Attorneys made that after 5 years.

I simply said that $90-100K is dirt around here.  I will be making GS-13 or GS-14 in another 3 years.  GS-13 will be roughly $80-85K and GS-14 will be around $90-95K in that time considering the 3.1% increase per year (on average).
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: wardwilliams on May 06, 2006, 12:48:04 PM
What type of government work will you be making 100K after 5 years?  I've never heard of that before.  I didn't even think US Attorneys made that after 5 years.

I simply said that $90-100K is dirt around here.  I will be making GS-13 or GS-14 in another 3 years.  GS-13 will be roughly $80-85K and GS-14 will be around $90-95K in that time considering the 3.1% increase per year (on average).

I was responding to "dsll" post above.  I was wondering how "a minority that goes to work for the gov't can make 100K after 5 years"  I didnt even think after 5 years DOJ and US attys made that
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: LALaw04 on May 07, 2006, 11:00:51 AM
You know, the key to wealth is to spend less than you make.  Over time, you will be fine even if you are "just" making $100k/year. 

http://www.cafepress.com/lawgear
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Italian2L on May 07, 2006, 03:02:35 PM
That wasn't my point.  My point is $90-100K in DC is middle class.  Add in a $1,000/month loan payment into the mix and you aren't even able to buy a home in this area.  A 2 BR Condo runs around $400K+ and that is a CONDO.  Homes start around $650K in a decent suburb, not to mention you will likely want your kids to go to private school since most Northern VA public schools are horrible.

I was just making a point that DC is overpriced and although it may seem like you will be making big bucks here, you won't be. 

This is pretty accurate as far as the real estate market goes, but you are dead wrong about the public schools in northern va being horrible. Check this link out:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7723397/site/newsweek/

There are 4 fairfax county/arlington schools listed in the top 50. The top 200 has 11 schools from nova. Granted, there are a few real bad schools in the mix, but clearly there are a lot of good choices also.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Erapitt on May 07, 2006, 03:45:28 PM
That wasn't my point.  My point is $90-100K in DC is middle class.  Add in a $1,000/month loan payment into the mix and you aren't even able to buy a home in this area.  A 2 BR Condo runs around $400K+ and that is a CONDO.  Homes start around $650K in a decent suburb, not to mention you will likely want your kids to go to private school since most Northern VA public schools are horrible.

I was just making a point that DC is overpriced and although it may seem like you will be making big bucks here, you won't be. 

This is pretty accurate as far as the real estate market goes, but you are dead wrong about the public schools in northern va being horrible. Check this link out:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7723397/site/newsweek/

There are 4 fairfax county/arlington schools listed in the top 50. The top 200 has 11 schools from nova. Granted, there are a few real bad schools in the mix, but clearly there are a lot of good choices also.


I read that article, but from what I have heard voiced from parents in this area is that those are schools inthe wealthiest parts of NOVA.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: iguesstherefore on May 08, 2006, 05:08:17 PM
Interesting thread!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: citadel on May 08, 2006, 07:44:34 PM
By 2014, the number of lawyers in America is forecast to surpass the number of farm workers.

http://biz.yahoo.com/special/goodjob06_article1.html
Title: The Generation Y work ethic ...
Post by: villi on May 11, 2006, 06:58:24 PM
there's nothing wrong with being middle class

Law Firms Mull the 'Gen Y' Equation

Some call them slackers. Others are more diplomatic. But whatever the moniker, "Generation Y" associates are getting a bad rap for what some say is a flabby work ethic and an off-putting sense of entitlement. Attorneys from Generation Y -- those born in 1978 or later -- are plenty smart and generally well educated, say firm leaders and industry experts. But these young attorneys also are lacking in loyalty, initiative and energy, so the criticism goes. And though some associates sharply dispute the assessment, the perception is forcing managing partners to rethink their motivation strategies and their expectations for their firms' future.

Big money at large firms may be intoxicating for young lawyers with mounds of school debt, but new associates often are not willing to make the sacrifice that those salaries demand, said Bruce McLean, chairman of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. "It entices people to come to big firms who really don't want to do what we do," said McLean, adding that Akin Gump has a "significant number" of hardworking associates. Generation Y associates often come from the nation's top schools and have other impressive credentials, McLean said, but what many do not have is unbridled ambition. "Just being successful and a partner in a firm is not enough of a motivating tool," he said.

But third-year associate Moe Keshavarzi at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton in Los Angeles said that firms with unhappy Generation Y associates are not tapping into their potential. "I have friends who are fourth-year associates at other firms who are sitting in the library researching," he said. Studies indicate that young workers are less willing to put in long hours and instead are more focused on pursuing interests outside work than were their predecessors. A report issued by the Families and Work Institute "Generation and Gender in the Workplace", found that younger employees are less likely to be "work-centric." The study also found that young men and women are more interested in staying at the same rung on the career ladder in order to preserve their quality of life. With regard to law firms specifically, a study conducted by Edge International, a professional services consulting firm, found that the 25- to 30-year-old group ranked the following factors as motivators at their jobs: time for personal life; opportunities for advancement; professional growth; achievement; intrinsic nature of work; security; leadership; and being a member of a team.

"This group wants to grow professionally and advance to partnership, but not while compromising their personal lives," said Karen MacKay, a partner with Edge International. The survey, "Motivating the Next Generation," was sent to about 4,000 members of the law firm network Multilaw. About 800 attorneys responded. It may be that new associates simply are more vocal about what they perceive as meaningless work, even if they are handsomely paid, said Reed Smith fifth-year associate Alicia Powell. "After you make so much money, it's enough," Powell said. Part of what is fueling management's perception relates to the dot-com bust, said Morrison & Foerster chairman Keith Wetmore. Older partners may view any grousing by associates who receive assignments from them as a sign of being ungrateful for work that three years ago was scarce, he said. "It may be more in the eyes of the observer than in the associate," he said.

THE 'PACK MENTALITY'

But other firm leaders are less forgiving. One managing partner at a New York firm cited a "failure to take charge of their career" as a common problem with young associates. "They are more willing to sit back and wait for things to happen to them instead of making them happen for themselves," the attorney said, adding that new associates today are more brazen than those in previous years. "They are willing to turn down work they don't want to do. They don't volunteer for committee or other firm work." Another managing partner at a national firm said that many new associates, unlike associates before them, no longer "feel lucky" to have their jobs. The attorney also said that associates now operate under a pack mentality. "[Newer associates] have a very strong connection with each other as opposed to the institution. If someone is treated badly, they all react to it," the attorney said.

"Vigorously" rejecting the Generation Y characterization, however, is Jonathan Cole, immediate past chairman of the American Bar Association's Young Lawyers Division. Associates today work harder, if not more effectively, than in previous generations, said Cole, who made partner in 2003 at the Nashville, Tenn., office of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz. He acknowledged, however, that associates, who in the past may have blindly met a firm's demands, now more closely consider the tradeoff to their personal life. "People are looking more 'big picture,'" he said. "It's a good trend." Generation Y workers may be too smart for their own good, which contributes to management's perceptions, said Carolyn Martin, co-author of "Managing Generation Y". Employees in that generation, especially those in professional positions, place a high value on education, something their parents drilled into them, she said. Consequently, young associates have a low tolerance for less-than-challenging tasks that management often relegates to them, she said.

In addition, the group has a greater degree of cynicism than in generations past, she said, stemming from the dot-com failure and 9/11 terrorist attacks. The result is diminished long-term loyalty to their employers. "They're saying, 'I've looked at the world and there's no such thing as job security,'" she said.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: wardwilliams on May 11, 2006, 07:08:32 PM
Where is this article from?  What point are you trying to make by posting it?
Title: Re: The Generation Y work ethic ...
Post by: nadiz on May 12, 2006, 04:56:22 PM

In addition, the group has a greater degree of cynicism than in generations past, she said, stemming from the dot-com failure and 9/11 terrorist attacks. The result is diminished long-term loyalty to their employers. "They're saying, 'I've looked at the world and there's no such thing as job security,'" she said.


Interesting!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: oxoxo on May 15, 2006, 08:49:47 PM
wow, as a seasoned professional in the REAL WORLD, Erapitt sure is acting like a child.

Erapitt IS a child.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: tahitilaw on May 23, 2006, 02:22:38 AM
I graduated from a top 20 school and passed the July 2004 cal bar on the first try. I've had no luck finding any work except for document review in downtown L.A. I'm glad to have some sort of income but I can't afford my rent and student loans, along with credit cards ... and I drive a crappy 1995 corolla and don't live large either.

I am a decent, hardworking, honest and driven person. I am attractive, socially able, and can either take direction as needed or take initiative and do work on my own as needed. It's just a terrible time to be looking for employment with all of the other unemployed lawyers out there -- lots of which have experience already and I only have document review experience post-law school.

I don't think it's a relfection of my school because my classmates have secured great jobs in the northeast (where my school is located) and in other venues ... it was much harder for me coming from Northeast to California (where I was born and raised)... just because it's much easier to get a job if you're physically located in that state.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Linda99 on May 23, 2006, 02:47:21 AM
It used to be that all it took for success in the legal field was a law degree. It was just a matter of "ticket punching." Often schools found making contacts much more important than attending classes (consider the semester President Clinton did not attend classes at Yale so that he could work on a political campaign. Look at his grades for that semester). The "ticket punching" era came to an end -- in some states slowly, in some states with great drama. In one instance (when the great "crunch" hit Texas) schools went from full placement by Christmas of the senior year to 20% placement at graduation in the course of one class. Virtually all of the Harvard class of '75 made partner by the 10-year reunion. Of the Harvard class of '85, so few made partner by the 10-year reunion it was a Section B front page story in the Wall Street Journal.

As "ticket punching" ended, the era of "work hard" and "work your way across" entered the stage. In order to succeed, all you had to do was do good, ethical and solid work and you would eventually be in shape for a lateral hire. Most people assumed during this period that they just had to have actually learned in law school rather than getting their ticket punched. In reality, they had to keep learning and had to become a good attorney (rather than find someone to teach them how to be a good attorney) to get a chance at being an attorney. Even the "anchor man" (the graduating student with the lowest grades) of the class could make it in a large to medium firm if he or she just worked hard and made the right lateral moves. Small firm lawyers, solos and assistant district attorneys all learned to work hard and then approach law firms that would not talk to them 4-5 years before when they had graduated. The era of "work hard" and "work your way across" has been drowned under an excess of new lawyers unlike anything seen in history.

As the glut of excess lawyers continues unabated (and as technology makes many things possible with far fewer lawyers) further adjustments are not far behind. Currently, the top 10-15% (gradewise) from 1st tier schools (roughly, the 40 or so best schools in the U.S.) go to two kinds of jobs. They go to "traditional firms" (these firms used to hire from the top half) and government jobs (that used to go to the bottom half of the class from the bottom half of the schools). Worse, after a year of so of looking for work, the very status of length out of law school is a permanent barrier to most employment. A history in a small firm, as a solo or in a District Attorney's Office qualifies an attorney only to go to work for herself or himself.

The bottom 80% or so of the graduates are forced to learn how to practice law on their own (law schools do not teach them). They have to open a law practice on their own (and hope someone tells them about Foonberg's How to Start and Build a Law Practice). They must do all their own marketing and do all their own rainmaking (which means find all of their own business -- in an environment swamped with expensive advertising and established firms looking for work). It is extremely hard for a new lawyer to be credible enough to be a rainmaker -- especially if he or she is working a part-time job on the side. Worse, many professions that used to be somewhat compatible (e.g. stockbroking) have had lay-offs as high as 50% (stockbroking) or worse (insurance sales 75% plus) so that traditional "attorney & more" jobs are fewer.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Linda99 on May 23, 2006, 02:49:59 AM
But there is hope.

95% of the families are completely unaware of the issues and problems facing most new lawyers. 95% of the new lawyers are completely unaware of most of the issues and problems facing most new lawyers (if they had been, at least half would have left law for some other career, such as teaching grade school, that has a higher average salary). Also, most people have a hard time understanding solutions until they realize just what the problem really is. Instead, they commonly repeat the old "tried and true" advice that worked for new lawyers 10-20 years ago without any perspective on how that advice fails to provide any useful help to the normal new lawyer. The three most common kinds of advice "if you would just look harder for a job," "accept a low status law job," and "get a part-time job" are not solutions to the problems facing a new lawyer. Most families don't understand that the traditional solutions won't work until they understand the problems. (That there are no realistically open jobs, especially a year or so after graduation, the low status law jobs are now taken by law review graduates and the like, and getting a part-time job means leaving the legal profession and giving up on being a lawyer in almost all ways that a real part-time job works).

Well, isn't it hopeless?

No, it is not hopeless. But the problems do require a complete rethinking and retraining of a new lawyer's mind and support system. Law schools have barely moved from thinking of themselves as ticket punchers (consider how many of them charge a tuition differential based on the perceived employment benefits of law school) to "if you just work hard, you will succeed" and to "everyone has always thought being a lawyer was tough." That is as far as most of them have gotten. A few now preach "if the State Bar Associations would just pick up the slack, everything would be fine." The party lines taught in schools reflects the complete disconnect between scholastic life and reality -- in my mind, disqualifying the current professors and law school personnel from any legitimate claim to knowledge or the ability to teach anything useful about the law. The result of this disconnect is that law schools are completely clueless about teaching students what they need to know.

You adjust to being a lawyer and having a compatible second career. Often the second career is one that has many parts. For example, your new lawyer can become a lawyer and a "financial planner." Financial planners sell insurance, stocks, mutual funds, advise on putting together wills and trusts and give tax advice. (Or, in other words, are part time insurance salesmen, part time stock brokers, and part time accountants). She can become a "lawyer and" many other things, but he or she needs to look carefully at how the careers fit together. Second, the new lawyer must learn to write. Lawyers are writers first and foremost. (I know, in law school all they did was read and use some skills -- except at finals. They have to use skills that were ignored for three years). Learn to write with a word processor.

Third, your new lawyer need to learn to be a socially outgoing, sales oriented, marketing person. (I know, 95%+ of all professionals are the exact opposite of this personality type. This means completely changing your "professional" personality and skills -- a real task, and you have had absolutely no role models for this in law school. How many of your law professors were charming people you couldn't wait to spend social time with?) Fourth, your new lawyer needs to teach themselves the practice of law (law schools assume that all graduates will find someone -- or some firm -- that will teach them all they need to know. Well, that is true for 5% of the total graduates. The rest are on their own). A good place to start learning the law on one's own is materials like those put out by Nolo Press. Fifth, learn to use and obtain the use of a computer word processor and a 300dpi or better printer. A discounted, $200.00 used 286 or 386 PC works just fine. A used $200.00 HPIIIP laser printer will do as well as a new one. Even WordStar will get you started. 

Ok, nothing beats a large, financially successful, professionally well regarded, extended family living in a town of about 100,000 to 300,000 people that centers a community of half a million or so potential customers and that has no law school within five hundred miles. But then, nothing beats a rich parent with a thriving law practice who takes you in and teaches you everything from the ground up. As many have noted, nothing beats being able to choose rich people (no matter what kind of wealth they have) as parents.

But,

The advice I am giving you is to seek or create the same environment for yourself as you need to succeed. Find a community whose needs you can address and with which you have some rational connection. Do not rush into a part-time job, but, look for law related areas of employment (where you have some skills or contacts or just some interest) that mesh well with being a lawyer (e.g. many lawyers become claims adjusters. The experience is invaluable in later years as they work there way into the legal side of things or go into mediation) (Or, many lawyers also do financial planing work as well as wills, powers of attorney, probates, etc.). Also find legal areas of practice that fit together. E.g. many criminal defense attorneys also handle divorces for their clients and clients' relatives.

The glut of graduating and newly admitted lawyers is not hitting just "new lawyers." It is also very real (in Texas, for example, the state admits 3,000 new lawyers every year. It has employment for 500. The top 16.7% find jobs. The rest go unemployed and have to go into practice for themselves. The glut is hurting the profession across the board. Firms that were growing are now shrinking or barely staying even. Firms where associates made partner in 4 years now create "senior associates" or "non-equity partners" after 12-14 years (that is, instead of becoming a partner, associates become permanent associates after a decade and a half). In many small communities, decades old firms are dissolving from lack of sufficient work to support all the partners (often following 10+ years without enough work to add an associate). Small offices can no longer rest on their client bases but are forced to continually build a client base over and over again.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: jive on May 23, 2006, 03:13:54 AM
I volunteered at a self-help center for 4 months before I found my present job. It's not a bad way to fill the resume gap if your job search takes a while. If you are able to make a commitment for several weeks, the best thing you can do may be to volunteer for a public interest organization that will actually allow you to represent clients. This way you'll get litigation experience and you'll have cases to talk about when you interview for jobs.

Initially I went my local bar association's homepage and searched for volunteer opportunties. If you are located in a major city you should have no problem finding public interest organizations. Your law school career office might be able to help. In my situation, I was placed at a self-help center, which meant I did not get the opportunity to actually litigate cases, but provided people with assistance for representing themselves. This was a flexible arrangement and I volunteered on days when I didn't have interviews to go to, on average probably 12 hours a week or so. The work filled my resume gap but since I wasn't representing clients, I wasn't really getting much marketable training. If you are able to find work petitioning for domestic restraining orders or responding to unlawful detainers, you should go ahead and take it if you are able to make a time commitment, because you'll get a feel for basic civil procedure and you'll get to go to court. Most public interest organizations have ample research facilities and carry malpractice insurance that will cover the work you do for them.

If you are pinned down geographically, you might want to go ahead and join your local bar association and volunteer for a committee or two. This will allow you to network and also shows dedication.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: zippy on May 23, 2006, 03:33:36 AM
Graduates from T4 not being able to find work?! I've heard that a shitload of unemployed lawyers are only unemployed because they didn't make the right contacts while in law school, are too stubborn to start off at a job that pays lesser than what they expected, or don't want to move to a state or city where employment opportunities are better.

I mean, just having a BA/BS helps you at least find a moderate to OK (if not decent, if you're willing to relocate) job. If someone graduates from a T4, and can not go for the superbig LA/NY/Chicago law, they will still find a job if they do not mind relocating in Portland/Seattle/Boise/Minneapolis/whatever
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: thatsy on May 24, 2006, 10:23:09 AM
Linda you don't appear to have a male private part, yet you @ # ! * e d me in the ass so @ # ! * i n g hard!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: chainofcustody on May 25, 2006, 07:16:05 AM
Indeed, Linda's post is scary!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: caffedelmar on May 26, 2006, 04:43:00 PM
Quote
If someone graduates from a T4, and can not go for the superbig LA/NY/Chicago law, they will still find a job if they do not mind relocating in Portland/Seattle/Boise/Minneapolis/whatever

Oh, okay, this is surely an option!
Title: Re: Mercedes Benz
Post by: arista on May 29, 2006, 06:24:35 PM
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ?
Dialing For Dollars is trying to find me.
I wait for delivery each day until three,
So oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ?

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ?
I'm counting on you, Lord, please don't let me down.
Prove that you love me and buy the next round,
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ?

Everybody!

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends,
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?

That's it!

;)
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Budlaw on May 29, 2006, 07:44:03 PM
But there is hope.

95% of the families are completely unaware of the issues and problems facing most new lawyers. 95% of the new lawyers are completely unaware of most of the issues and problems facing most new lawyers (if they had been, at least half would have left law for some other career, such as teaching grade school, that has a higher average salary). Also, most people have a hard time understanding solutions until they realize just what the problem really is. Instead, they commonly repeat the old "tried and true" advice that worked for new lawyers 10-20 years ago without any perspective on how that advice fails to provide any useful help to the normal new lawyer. The three most common kinds of advice "if you would just look harder for a job," "accept a low status law job," and "get a part-time job" are not solutions to the problems facing a new lawyer. Most families don't understand that the traditional solutions won't work until they understand the problems. (That there are no realistically open jobs, especially a year or so after graduation, the low status law jobs are now taken by law review graduates and the like, and getting a part-time job means leaving the legal profession and giving up on being a lawyer in almost all ways that a real part-time job works).

Well, isn't it hopeless?

No, it is not hopeless. But the problems do require a complete rethinking and retraining of a new lawyer's mind and support system. Law schools have barely moved from thinking of themselves as ticket punchers (consider how many of them charge a tuition differential based on the perceived employment benefits of law school) to "if you just work hard, you will succeed" and to "everyone has always thought being a lawyer was tough." That is as far as most of them have gotten. A few now preach "if the State Bar Associations would just pick up the slack, everything would be fine." The party lines taught in schools reflects the complete disconnect between scholastic life and reality -- in my mind, disqualifying the current professors and law school personnel from any legitimate claim to knowledge or the ability to teach anything useful about the law. The result of this disconnect is that law schools are completely clueless about teaching students what they need to know.

You adjust to being a lawyer and having a compatible second career. Often the second career is one that has many parts. For example, your new lawyer can become a lawyer and a "financial planner." Financial planners sell insurance, stocks, mutual funds, advise on putting together wills and trusts and give tax advice. (Or, in other words, are part time insurance salesmen, part time stock brokers, and part time accountants). She can become a "lawyer and" many other things, but he or she needs to look carefully at how the careers fit together. Second, the new lawyer must learn to write. Lawyers are writers first and foremost. (I know, in law school all they did was read and use some skills -- except at finals. They have to use skills that were ignored for three years). Learn to write with a word processor.

Third, your new lawyer need to learn to be a socially outgoing, sales oriented, marketing person. (I know, 95%+ of all professionals are the exact opposite of this personality type. This means completely changing your "professional" personality and skills -- a real task, and you have had absolutely no role models for this in law school. How many of your law professors were charming people you couldn't wait to spend social time with?) Fourth, your new lawyer needs to teach themselves the practice of law (law schools assume that all graduates will find someone -- or some firm -- that will teach them all they need to know. Well, that is true for 5% of the total graduates. The rest are on their own). A good place to start learning the law on one's own is materials like those put out by Nolo Press. Fifth, learn to use and obtain the use of a computer word processor and a 300dpi or better printer. A discounted, $200.00 used 286 or 386 PC works just fine. A used $200.00 HPIIIP laser printer will do as well as a new one. Even WordStar will get you started. 

Ok, nothing beats a large, financially successful, professionally well regarded, extended family living in a town of about 100,000 to 300,000 people that centers a community of half a million or so potential customers and that has no law school within five hundred miles. But then, nothing beats a rich parent with a thriving law practice who takes you in and teaches you everything from the ground up. As many have noted, nothing beats being able to choose rich people (no matter what kind of wealth they have) as parents.

But,

The advice I am giving you is to seek or create the same environment for yourself as you need to succeed. Find a community whose needs you can address and with which you have some rational connection. Do not rush into a part-time job, but, look for law related areas of employment (where you have some skills or contacts or just some interest) that mesh well with being a lawyer (e.g. many lawyers become claims adjusters. The experience is invaluable in later years as they work there way into the legal side of things or go into mediation) (Or, many lawyers also do financial planing work as well as wills, powers of attorney, probates, etc.). Also find legal areas of practice that fit together. E.g. many criminal defense attorneys also handle divorces for their clients and clients' relatives.

The glut of graduating and newly admitted lawyers is not hitting just "new lawyers." It is also very real (in Texas, for example, the state admits 3,000 new lawyers every year. It has employment for 500. The top 16.7% find jobs. The rest go unemployed and have to go into practice for themselves. The glut is hurting the profession across the board. Firms that were growing are now shrinking or barely staying even. Firms where associates made partner in 4 years now create "senior associates" or "non-equity partners" after 12-14 years (that is, instead of becoming a partner, associates become permanent associates after a decade and a half). In many small communities, decades old firms are dissolving from lack of sufficient work to support all the partners (often following 10+ years without enough work to add an associate). Small offices can no longer rest on their client bases but are forced to continually build a client base over and over again.

Linda: (if that is your name)

I'm sorry, but if you make these claims, then you're going to have to back them up these numbers with some sources. Specifically, I'd like to see where you get the number that only 16.7% of graduates of Texas Law schools find jobs. Because you are definately NOT getting these numbers from LSAC, the ABA, or USNews.

I'd have to say that you're a liar at this point until you can actually back up your numbers with sources. 

Lets see these sources now.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: noir on May 30, 2006, 05:45:23 AM

Linda: (if that is your name)

I'm sorry, but if you make these claims, then you're going to have to back them up these numbers with some sources. Specifically, I'd like to see where you get the number that only 16.7% of graduates of Texas Law schools find jobs. Because you are definately NOT getting these numbers from LSAC, the ABA, or USNews.

I'd have to say that you're a liar at this point until you can actually back up your numbers with sources. 

Lets see these sources now.

Budlaw goes to a TTT! It's all obvious!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: niggalaw on May 31, 2006, 06:53:27 PM
My, my, my, this thread has some pretty good info!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Budlaw on May 31, 2006, 06:55:36 PM

Linda: (if that is your name)

I'm sorry, but if you make these claims, then you're going to have to back them up these numbers with some sources. Specifically, I'd like to see where you get the number that only 16.7% of graduates of Texas Law schools find jobs. Because you are definately NOT getting these numbers from LSAC, the ABA, or USNews.

I'd have to say that you're a liar at this point until you can actually back up your numbers with sources. 

Lets see these sources now.

Budlaw goes to a TTT! It's all obvious!

No, I go to Florida State.

Where do you go? I've been very honest about where I actually go to law school at. You on the otherhand keep making up new screen names and being dishonest about who you really are.

Do you even go to lawschool? I doubt it.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: dillaw on June 01, 2006, 06:10:31 AM
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: ttbt on June 01, 2006, 05:56:07 PM
What dillaw?
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: shakira on June 06, 2006, 05:26:37 AM
Muthafuckin thread!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: melvin on June 07, 2006, 04:21:49 AM

Partners in small plaintiff's firms earn an average a little bit more than the partners at the large defense firms that oppose them.


So this is true only for PI law or all areas of law?
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: freehostin on June 10, 2006, 03:43:40 AM
LOL melvin! ;)
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: pajamas on June 12, 2006, 06:44:49 PM
It used to be that all it took for success in the legal field was a law degree. It was just a matter of "ticket punching." Often schools found making contacts much more important than attending classes (consider the semester President Clinton did not attend classes at Yale so that he could work on a political campaign. Look at his grades for that semester). The "ticket punching" era came to an end -- in some states slowly, in some states with great drama. In one instance (when the great "crunch" hit Texas) schools went from full placement by Christmas of the senior year to 20% placement at graduation in the course of one class. Virtually all of the Harvard class of '75 made partner by the 10-year reunion. Of the Harvard class of '85, so few made partner by the 10-year reunion it was a Section B front page story in the Wall Street Journal.

As "ticket punching" ended, the era of "work hard" and "work your way across" entered the stage. In order to succeed, all you had to do was do good, ethical and solid work and you would eventually be in shape for a lateral hire. Most people assumed during this period that they just had to have actually learned in law school rather than getting their ticket punched. In reality, they had to keep learning and had to become a good attorney (rather than find someone to teach them how to be a good attorney) to get a chance at being an attorney. Even the "anchor man" (the graduating student with the lowest grades) of the class could make it in a large to medium firm if he or she just worked hard and made the right lateral moves. Small firm lawyers, solos and assistant district attorneys all learned to work hard and then approach law firms that would not talk to them 4-5 years before when they had graduated. The era of "work hard" and "work your way across" has been drowned under an excess of new lawyers unlike anything seen in history.

As the glut of excess lawyers continues unabated (and as technology makes many things possible with far fewer lawyers) further adjustments are not far behind. Currently, the top 10-15% (gradewise) from 1st tier schools (roughly, the 40 or so best schools in the U.S.) go to two kinds of jobs. They go to "traditional firms" (these firms used to hire from the top half) and government jobs (that used to go to the bottom half of the class from the bottom half of the schools). Worse, after a year of so of looking for work, the very status of length out of law school is a permanent barrier to most employment. A history in a small firm, as a solo or in a District Attorney's Office qualifies an attorney only to go to work for herself or himself.

The bottom 80% or so of the graduates are forced to learn how to practice law on their own (law schools do not teach them). They have to open a law practice on their own (and hope someone tells them about Foonberg's How to Start and Build a Law Practice). They must do all their own marketing and do all their own rainmaking (which means find all of their own business -- in an environment swamped with expensive advertising and established firms looking for work). It is extremely hard for a new lawyer to be credible enough to be a rainmaker -- especially if he or she is working a part-time job on the side. Worse, many professions that used to be somewhat compatible (e.g. stockbroking) have had lay-offs as high as 50% (stockbroking) or worse (insurance sales 75% plus) so that traditional "attorney & more" jobs are fewer.


OMG!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: benny on June 15, 2006, 06:22:13 PM
 :o
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: jason1114 on June 16, 2006, 04:13:50 PM
 ??? meh?
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: mirra on June 18, 2006, 04:37:34 AM
OK
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: retail theft on June 21, 2006, 06:26:28 AM

[...] but if you make these claims, then you're going to have to back them up these numbers with some sources.


A former soldier who wants to see sources .. what an ass that has begun to take itself seriously!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Budlaw on June 21, 2006, 09:30:04 AM

[...] but if you make these claims, then you're going to have to back them up these numbers with some sources.


A former soldier who wants to see sources .. what an ass that has begun to take itself seriously!

Actually it's former Marine, not "solidier". There's a big difference. But at least you got one thing right: I am an ass.
Title: Law School by Default
Post by: da! on June 25, 2006, 01:56:40 PM
Want to keep your options open? Don't train to be a lawyer.

BY CAMERON STRACHER

Friday, June 23, 2006

They're dropping like flies. Count 'em. Despite the swelling ranks of the new recruits, the steady growth in large corporate firms, and the length, breadth and expense of lawsuits, the legal profession is actually losing lawyers every day, a silent drain of talent to banking, business and premature retirement. Every year, I face a new class of eager law students, ready to take on the world, but after a couple of years of practice, many have lost their youthful glow. Perhaps it's time to rethink the whole "law school as default" mentality that infects so many otherwise sane young minds.

On the surface, the legal profession appears to be booming. Although growth has slowed since the 1960s and '70s, each year 40,000 new lawyers join a field that now totals one million, about the same size as the nation's state prison population. Salaries have climbed steadily, and lawyers at the top firms can expect to make about $160,000 upon graduation from law school. But look beneath the statistics and a few facts jump out. First, large law firms, those employing more than 500 lawyers, lose nearly 40% of their associates within four years of hiring them. After six years, the ratio climbs to 60%.

Some might suggest that the fault here lies with the firms' policies regarding advancement. A number of recent articles have bemoaned the lack of female partners (only 17% of the partners at major law firms are women, while women compose nearly half of all law-school graduates). The number of males who don't stick around long enough to make partner, however, is only a few percentage points lower. Thus, while it may not be easy to be a woman in law, the guys aren't doing much better. In fact, it could be argued that women are leaving in slightly higher numbers because they can while many men, trapped by their gender-typed "provider" roles, have fewer options.

The attrition numbers are even worse in other parts of the profession. According to a recent study by the National Association for Law Placement Foundation, 42% of lawyers in small firms (and 50% in solo practices) have changed jobs within three years of graduation, and two-thirds of them have switched two or more times. One way to interpret the numbers is to conclude that such lawyers have plentiful opportunities and are moving to better jobs. The same group, however, tends to have less stellar credentials and to have graduated lower in their class than their colleagues at big firms, leaving them fewer options, and suggesting that these attorneys are even more dissatisfied than their big-firm contemporaries.

What happens to the recently departed? While many go to other law firms, or into other legal jobs, such as in-house counsel at corporations, anecdotal evidence shows that a significant percentage drop out of the legal profession entirely. This doesn't surprise me: Among my own law school classmates, for example, only one of my friends is still practicing at the firm he joined upon graduation. The rest have moved on or dropped out of the profession.

My two closest female friends are both stay-at-home moms, forsaking lucrative practices to raise their children. Another friend has gone on to become an actor. Another writes for television. Several are novelists. While there have always been lawyers who choose not to practice, "The buzz now is lawyers getting three years of experience at a big firm, then going off and doing something entirely unrelated to the law," says Allan Whitescarver, director of communications at the commercial firm, Clifford Chance. He mentions one lawyer who opened a bookstore in France and another who works for the World Health Organization in a nonlegal role. They may be among the lucky ones. The legal profession is really two professions: the elite lawyers and everyone else. Most of the former start out at big law firms. Many of the latter never find gainful legal employment. Instead, they work at jobs that might be characterized as "quasi-legal": paralegals, clerks, administrators, doing work for which they probably never needed a J.D.

Although hard data about the nature of these jobs are difficult to come by (and rely on self-reporting, which is inherently unreliable), the mean salary for graduates of top 10 law schools is $135,000 while it is $60,000 for "tier three" schools. It's certainly possible that tier-three graduates tend to gravitate toward lower-paying public-interest and government jobs, but this lower salary may also reflect the nonlegal nature of many of these jobs and the fact that these graduates are settling for anything that will pay the bills. At $38,000 a year for law school, plus living expenses, law-school graduates certainly have a lot of debt ($60,000 on average, upon graduation). For this price, college students and their parents should be thinking harder about their choices. When I went to law school, nearly everyone tried to convince me that doing so would "keep my options open." All this really means is: "You can still be a lawyer."

(http://opinionjournal.com/taste/062306lawyers.jpg)

If I wanted to be a screenwriter, waiting tables would have kept my options open, too. In fact, many wannabe screenwriters find themselves going to law school, misled by adults into thinking that it will help them get into the movie business. It won't. Sure, you can be a talent agent or a movie producer with a law degree, but you can be one without a degree, too. Most of the skills you learn in law school (and legal practice) won't help you make a movie, and the few that will may not be worth the cost (more than $120,000, including tuition, living expenses, as well as three years of forgone experience and salary). Rather than keeping options open, the crushing debt of law school often slams doors shut, pushing law students to find the highest-paying job they can and forever deferring dreams of anything else.

It's time those of us inside the profession did a better job of telling others outside the profession that most of us don't earn $160,000 a year, that we can't afford expensive suits, flashy cars, sexy apartments. We don't lunch with rock stars or produce movies. Every year I'm surprised by the number of my students who think a J.D. degree is a ticket to fame, fortune and the envy of one's peers -- a sure ticket to the upper middle class. Even for the select few for whom it is, not many last long enough at their law firms to really enjoy it. There's something wrong with a system that makes a whole lot of people pay a whole lot of money for jobs that are not worth it, or that have no future. If we wanted to be honest, we would inform students that law school doesn't keep their options open. Instead, we should say that if they work hard and do well, they can become lawyers.

_____________________________ _____________________________ ____________________________
Mr. Stracher is publisher of the New York Law School Law Review and the author of "Double Billing: A Young Lawyer's Tale of Greed, Sex, Lies and the Pursuit of a Swivel Chair."
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: lejla on July 02, 2006, 10:57:03 PM
There is nothing wrong with making money. But money can become the tail that wags the dog. Karl Llewellyn's observations of some 40 years ago, on lawyers and money, still ring true. He observed "a brand of lawyer for whom law is making of a livelihood, a competence, a fortune. Law offers means to live, to get ahead. It is so viewed. Such men give their whole selves to it, in this aspect. Coin is their reward. Coin makes it possible to live. Coin is success, coin is prestige, and coin is power. Such lawyers, I take it, reflect rather adequately the standards of our civilization. They have perceived the mainspring of a money economy. They follow single-heartedly on their perception. Coin is, in this society, the measure of a man."
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: ronaldo on July 05, 2006, 01:53:28 AM

There is nothing wrong with making money. But money can become the tail that wags the dog. Karl Llewellyn's observations of some 40 years ago, on lawyers and money, still ring true. He observed "a brand of lawyer for whom law is making of a livelihood, a competence, a fortune. Law offers means to live, to get ahead. It is so viewed. Such men give their whole selves to it, in this aspect. Coin is their reward. Coin makes it possible to live. Coin is success, coin is prestige, and coin is power. Such lawyers, I take it, reflect rather adequately the standards of our civilization. They have perceived the mainspring of a money economy. They follow single-heartedly on their perception. Coin is, in this society, the measure of a man."


An American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.

The Mexican replied, "only a little while."

The American then asked why didn't he stay out longer and catch more fish?

The Mexican said he had enough to support his family's immediate needs.

The American then asked, "but what do you do with the rest of your time?"

The Mexican fisherman said, "I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siestas with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine, and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life."

The American scoffed, "I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat, you could buy several boats, eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing, and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually New York City, where you will run your expanding enterprise."

The Mexican fisherman asked, "But, how long will this all take?"

To which the American replied, "15 - 20 years."

"But what then?" Asked the Mexican.

The American laughed and said, "That's the best part. When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions!"

"Millions - then what?"

The American said, "Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siestas with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos."
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: manny portuguese on July 05, 2006, 03:04:20 AM
Very thoughtful! 
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: inthelaw45 on July 05, 2006, 09:01:31 AM
Before law school I actually worked for a few years as a paralegal at smaller firms.  None of the attorneys at these firms were wealthy, except for the managing partner.  What was most shocking to me, however, was that at one of the firms I worked at, I worked with an attorney who had graduated high in her class from William and Mary (pretty respectable school) and, essentially, WE DID THE SAME WORK.  She got to see clients in person, but other than that, we did all the same types of paperwork and document production within the files.  I'm sure she got paid a bit more than I did as a paralegal, but what really freaked me out was that our duties were almost the same.  She had a JD and was doing paralegal work, really.  After a few years of loathing my workload as a paralegal I'm getting a JD from a CHEAP (public in-state) decent-but-not-great law school and I've decided I want to work for the district attorney's office.  At the very least, I the work I'll be doing should be interesting.  At least I'll get to be in a courtroom every once in awhile.  The pay will suck, but I expect that, and I shouldn't have more than $5000 of debt from my run-of-the-mill school.  Being "poor" as a lawyer isn't what scares me.  What scares me is that a lot of lawyers do REALLY REALLY boring, crappy work.
Title: From Homo Oeconomicus to Homo Sexualis
Post by: Gina on July 06, 2006, 07:47:46 PM

There is nothing wrong with making money. But money can become the tail that wags the dog. Karl Llewellyn's observations of some 40 years ago, on lawyers and money, still ring true. He observed "a brand of lawyer for whom law is making of a livelihood, a competence, a fortune. Law offers means to live, to get ahead. It is so viewed. Such men give their whole selves to it, in this aspect. Coin is their reward. Coin makes it possible to live. Coin is success, coin is prestige, and coin is power. Such lawyers, I take it, reflect rather adequately the standards of our civilization. They have perceived the mainspring of a money economy. They follow single-heartedly on their perception. Coin is, in this society, the measure of a man."


Freud argued that feces, as matter that comes from within oneself and then becomes matter outside and thus independent Of oneself, is recognized by the child as his "creation." In this recognition, the child frequently uses feces for love, offering it up as a gift to those for whom he cares. As something which he makes and which becomes his own (and is not bestowed on him externally), the child perceives of feces as personal property that defines independence. The child also recognizes that this substance, often problematically received by the world, can be used aggressively, as a weapon. Thus a child's sense of mastery, power, and defiance derives initially from manipulation of excrement.

Freud explained that as one evolves out of the stages of infant sexuality, the values attributed to feces are reattached through sublimation to other nonbodily objects. According to Freud, anal erotism moves from feces to money.

Freud elaborated the notion that the emergence of money economy is rooted in the "anal" phase of sexuality. The child's attitude toward excretion thus adumbrated its later attitude toward possessions. Since fecal matter was the first object created by the infant which could be alienated from it in exchange for others' praise, an anal retentive character prefigured excessive parsimony, an anal expulsive character excessive improvidence. Feces itself became the prototype for gold, a hypothesis Freud defended by referring to cross-linguistic data suggesting a connection between "filthy lucre" and precious metal.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: R. Bennett on July 06, 2006, 09:32:12 PM
Quote
Freud argued that feces, as matter that comes from within oneself and then becomes matter outside and thus independent Of oneself, is recognized by the child as his "creation." In this recognition, the child frequently uses feces for love, offering it up as a gift to those for whom he cares. As something which he makes and which becomes his own (and is not bestowed on him externally), the child perceives of feces as personal property that defines independence. The child also recognizes that this substance, often problematically received by the world, can be used aggressively, as a weapon. Thus a child's sense of mastery, power, and defiance derives initially from manipulation of excrement.

Freud explained that as one evolves out of the stages of infant sexuality, the values attributed to feces are reattached through sublimation to other nonbodily objects. According to Freud, anal erotism moves from feces to money.

Freud elaborated the notion that the emergence of money economy is rooted in the "anal" phase of sexuality. The child's attitude toward excretion thus adumbrated its later attitude toward possessions. Since fecal matter was the first object created by the infant which could be alienated from it in exchange for others' praise, an anal retentive character prefigured excessive parsimony, an anal expulsive character excessive improvidence. Feces itself became the prototype for gold, a hypothesis Freud defended by referring to cross-linguistic data suggesting a connection between "filthy lucre" and precious metal.

Well, now that's real c*ap.   :o

Back to topic, though, the point is that lawyers can earn a decent living, but very few of them are rich financially, and many earn very modest amounts.  If you want riches, be an investment banker or an entrepreneur.  If you want a career that many find respectable (despite the jokes) in which your role is helping others in one way or another, then maybe the law is your field.  Yes, many lawyers do much what paralegals in the big firms do (plus some).  Some lawyers do the wrong thing, usually because of their money problems.  But if you can survive law school, if you enjoy what you are taught, and if you can budget yourself and keep from having delusions of grandeur so you can maintain financial stability and (with time) growth, then be a lawyer.  But don't be a lawyer if you do it just for the money.  Most lawyers make less than the public has the impression lawyers make.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: delpiero on July 07, 2006, 12:09:38 AM

There is nothing wrong with making money. But money can become the tail that wags the dog. Karl Llewellyn's observations of some 40 years ago, on lawyers and money, still ring true. He observed "a brand of lawyer for whom law is making of a livelihood, a competence, a fortune. Law offers means to live, to get ahead. It is so viewed. Such men give their whole selves to it, in this aspect. Coin is their reward. Coin makes it possible to live. Coin is success, coin is prestige, and coin is power. Such lawyers, I take it, reflect rather adequately the standards of our civilization. They have perceived the mainspring of a money economy. They follow single-heartedly on their perception. Coin is, in this society, the measure of a man."


Freud argued that feces, as matter that comes from within oneself and then becomes matter outside and thus independent Of oneself, is recognized by the child as his "creation." In this recognition, the child frequently uses feces for love, offering it up as a gift to those for whom he cares. As something which he makes and which becomes his own (and is not bestowed on him externally), the child perceives of feces as personal property that defines independence. The child also recognizes that this substance, often problematically received by the world, can be used aggressively, as a weapon. Thus a child's sense of mastery, power, and defiance derives initially from manipulation of excrement.

Freud explained that as one evolves out of the stages of infant sexuality, the values attributed to feces are reattached through sublimation to other nonbodily objects. According to Freud, anal erotism moves from feces to money.

Freud elaborated the notion that the emergence of money economy is rooted in the "anal" phase of sexuality. The child's attitude toward excretion thus adumbrated its later attitude toward possessions. Since fecal matter was the first object created by the infant which could be alienated from it in exchange for others' praise, an anal retentive character prefigured excessive parsimony, an anal expulsive character excessive improvidence. Feces itself became the prototype for gold, a hypothesis Freud defended by referring to cross-linguistic data suggesting a connection between "filthy lucre" and precious metal.


Freud himself who was to declare to Fliess in a letter dated 16 January 1898, that money did not form the object of an infantile wish which is why, as the well-known saying puts it, money proves incapable of "making one happy" as an adult. Yet, it can nevertheless give the impression of doing so, to the extent that it is capable as we know from Freudian metapsychology of functioning as the unconscious substitute and equivalent for any "object" whatsoever that is invested by the libido of the subject, be this oral, phallic or, especially, anal. Indeed, it is because infants view their faeces as the first tangible proof of their capacity to produce something meaningful, on both a material level and a "relational" one, that money stands in a relation of symbolic equivalence, for the unconscious of every subject, with the notions of faeces, gift, penis, and baby.

On a material level, faeces represent for children their first possessions of value. Indeed, if children tend at first, roughly between the ages of 2 and 3, to take an auto-erotic pleasure in defecating (the first phase of the anal stage), they subsequently discover, around the age of 3 or 4, that they can obtain a more intense excitation by holding back their stool (the second phase of the anal stage). This is the source of the pleasure adults take in holding onto money, valuable objects or, yet again, time (as shown by the character-traits of avarice and parsimony, as well as the pleasure of hoarding or saving), in accordance with the equation of money and excrement. As regards the relational point of view, it is not long before the child comes up against a parental injunction usually expressed by the mother to "do" when and where it is necessary. The child thus finds himself or herself faced with an alternative: either to obey and defecate in the pot upon which he or she is placed, and thereby secure maternal satisfaction, along with rewards and caresses; or to disobey, in a show of defiance directed at the beloved mother, by "doing" anytime and anywhere (in bed, for example) or by refusing to perform when asked to, and thereby annoy, or even anger, his or her mother.

The first option consists in the child's presenting his or her first real gift to the mother namely, the gift of his or her stools, capable of extracting cries of joy or surprise from the latter and in thereby taking up an attitude of object love. The second option amounts to the child's preferring a narcissistic position -- refusal, stubbornness, obstinacy, opposition, etc. -- and his or her obtaining an aggressive satisfaction (the anal-sadistic aspect of which Freud speaks). This would form the source of the pleasure that adults can take in refusing demands made by other people -- such as demands for a pay rise made by employees in a firm, with such a refusal being all the more significant, on the symbolic level, when the rise in question is almost negligible in strictly financial terms. In the most extreme case, according to the psycho-analytical argument that is often put forward, an overly active or precocious repression of the child's psychosexual development during the anal stage -- especially at the moment of toilet training -- can lead to the development, in later life, of a veritable obsessional (or, as it was sometimes called, anal) neurosis. Since the pathbreaking work of Oskar Pfister on the psychical structure of classical capitalism and the financial mind (Borneman, 1978), an entire current of thought (Reich, Fromm, etc.) has endeavoured to locate within the capitalist system the indices of a collective obsessional neurotic syndrome.

Just as the child is under the illusion of the omnipotence of his or her excrements, so the capitalist would tend to believe that his or her money gives him or her the power -- and, above all, the right -- to do whatever he or she so desires. This is all the more the case given that "globalization" seems to increase multinational corporations' power of influence (which rivals that of nation-states) and that capitalism now has a free rein almost every- where in the world (with the notable exception of Cuba and North Korea).
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: nsre421 on July 07, 2006, 09:53:17 AM
isn't there a way you can get your loans forgiven?
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: wanton on July 07, 2006, 11:20:21 AM
tag
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: frolick on July 08, 2006, 04:51:44 PM
What a thread!
Title: Re: From Homo Oeconomicus to Homo Sexualis
Post by: enola on July 10, 2006, 01:35:35 AM

Freud elaborated the notion that the emergence of money economy is rooted in the "anal" phase of sexuality. The child's attitude toward excretion thus adumbrated its later attitude toward possessions. Since fecal matter was the first object created by the infant which could be alienated from it in exchange for others' praise, an anal retentive character prefigured excessive parsimony, an anal expulsive character excessive improvidence. Feces itself became the prototype for gold, a hypothesis Freud defended by referring to cross-linguistic data suggesting a connection between "filthy lucre" and precious metal.


Intersting!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: oro on July 10, 2006, 03:44:20 PM

What a thread!


Indeed!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: zztop on July 10, 2006, 04:18:14 PM

there's nothing wrong with being middle class


and there's nothing wrong with being unemployed either
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: loretta on July 11, 2006, 05:06:18 PM

Freud himself who was to declare to Fliess in a letter dated 16 January 1898, that money did not form the object of an infantile wish which is why, as the well-known saying puts it, money proves incapable of "making one happy" as an adult. Yet, it can nevertheless give the impression of doing so, to the extent that it is capable as we know from Freudian metapsychology of functioning as the unconscious substitute and equivalent for any "object" whatsoever that is invested by the libido of the subject, be this oral, phallic or, especially, anal. Indeed, it is because infants view their faeces as the first tangible proof of their capacity to produce something meaningful, on both a material level and a "relational" one, that money stands in a relation of symbolic equivalence, for the unconscious of every subject, with the notions of faeces, gift, penis, and baby.

On a material level, faeces represent for children their first possessions of value. Indeed, if children tend at first, roughly between the ages of 2 and 3, to take an auto-erotic pleasure in defecating (the first phase of the anal stage), they subsequently discover, around the age of 3 or 4, that they can obtain a more intense excitation by holding back their stool (the second phase of the anal stage). This is the source of the pleasure adults take in holding onto money, valuable objects or, yet again, time (as shown by the character-traits of avarice and parsimony, as well as the pleasure of hoarding or saving), in accordance with the equation of money and excrement. As regards the relational point of view, it is not long before the child comes up against a parental injunction usually expressed by the mother to "do" when and where it is necessary. The child thus finds himself or herself faced with an alternative: either to obey and defecate in the pot upon which he or she is placed, and thereby secure maternal satisfaction, along with rewards and caresses; or to disobey, in a show of defiance directed at the beloved mother, by "doing" anytime and anywhere (in bed, for example) or by refusing to perform when asked to, and thereby annoy, or even anger, his or her mother.

The first option consists in the child's presenting his or her first real gift to the mother namely, the gift of his or her stools, capable of extracting cries of joy or surprise from the latter and in thereby taking up an attitude of object love. The second option amounts to the child's preferring a narcissistic position -- refusal, stubbornness, obstinacy, opposition, etc. -- and his or her obtaining an aggressive satisfaction (the anal-sadistic aspect of which Freud speaks). This would form the source of the pleasure that adults can take in refusing demands made by other people -- such as demands for a pay rise made by employees in a firm, with such a refusal being all the more significant, on the symbolic level, when the rise in question is almost negligible in strictly financial terms. In the most extreme case, according to the psycho-analytical argument that is often put forward, an overly active or precocious repression of the child's psychosexual development during the anal stage -- especially at the moment of toilet training -- can lead to the development, in later life, of a veritable obsessional (or, as it was sometimes called, anal) neurosis. Since the pathbreaking work of Oskar Pfister on the psychical structure of classical capitalism and the financial mind (Borneman, 1978), an entire current of thought (Reich, Fromm, etc.) has endeavoured to locate within the capitalist system the indices of a collective obsessional neurotic syndrome.

Just as the child is under the illusion of the omnipotence of his or her excrements, so the capitalist would tend to believe that his or her money gives him or her the power -- and, above all, the right -- to do whatever he or she so desires. This is all the more the case given that "globalization" seems to increase multinational corporations' power of influence (which rivals that of nation-states) and that capitalism now has a free rein almost every- where in the world (with the notable exception of Cuba and North Korea).


So basically,

money = *&^%
capitalism = anal
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: blackjesus on July 13, 2006, 02:36:32 PM

People like you amuse me. You spend your whole lives convincing yourself that you are better than other people because of your pay check, or your degree, or your school... You register at a law forum and tell seasoned law students that they will be ambulance chasers?


Conventional wisdom holds that lawyers are like blood sucking leeches to a big animal. You've probably heard that if you find that perfect case and round-up all the clients it could be instant retirement for the rest of your life. For instance, many of the medical companies and big corporations will settle even before going to court so that it doesn't tarnish their public image.

Well, it's not that simple. The big money cases are few and far between. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of million plus cases you'll be working. Most are around $20,000.

The million dollar cases are a LOT of work. First, you gotta find the perfect client -- preferably one who does not think he won the lottery for a fender-bender. I mean seriously injured or seriously screwed over. Then you got do all the preliminary investigation. Then you got to go through settlement negotiations before you file suit. Then you file suit. Then you gotta go through long protracted discovery. The usual limits are usually waived by agreement in these cases. You can be dealing with literally hundreds of interrogatories and requests for production -- to your client. Then you have to propound the same on the jerkface defendant. Then you gotta wade through all that stuff. Then you gotta supplement the discovery. Then you take depositions -- usually lots of experts (which you already located) which tend to run to the thousands of dollars. Then you gotta go through more settlement negotiations. If you are lucky, it ends here. If not, you gotta go through trial. If you win, then you might get a real settlement offer to avoid an appeal. If not, you get to go through the appeals process. We are talking 4 or 5 years with no money coming in on this case, but lots going out. The experts want to be paid up front. The deposition company won't wait until after the case is over to be paid. There is a lot of time and effort that goes into these major cases.

What really keeps the firm going is the smaller cases, the $20,000 - $50,000 ones that hopefully settle quick. PI can have big payoffs, but they take a TON of effort.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: fenway024 on July 14, 2006, 09:27:56 AM
SECTION: METRO/REGION; Pg. B3

LENGTH: 533 words

HEADLINE: PROSECUTORS MOONLIGHT TO MAKE ENDS MEET;
ASSISTANT DAS SAY THEY LOVE 1ST JOBS

BYLINE: BY EMILY SWEENEY, GLOBE STAFF

BODY:


After spending all day in court, Assistant District Attorney John McLaughlin often drives his '98 Ford Explorer to a second job at a funeral home in East Milton Square. Assistant District Attorney Suzanne Dunleavy spends her nights and weekends teaching Irish step dancing classes for extra money. Other cash-strapped prosecutors moonlight tending bar, wiping tables, mopping supermarket floors, or painting houses. One drives the Zamboni at an ice rink.

The starting salary for assistant district attorneys is $35,000, not enough for many young prosecutors to live on and to pay off their law school loans.

Fifteen percent of the state's assistant district attorneys work second jobs, according to a 2004 survey by the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association. In Suffolk County, 1 in 5 moonlights.

McLaughlin, 32, has friends working at private law firms who make double his salary. But his frequent court work he has tried some 300 cases brings rewards that cannot be measured in cash, he said.

"I love this job; I like working with the victims," he said. "There's nothing better than winning a case for a victim. It lets people know that the system works sometimes."

To be an assistant district attorney, "I think you have to have a second job," he said. "We lose a lot of people because they just can't afford it."

McLaughlin has had a second job throughout his seven-year career at the Plymouth district attorney's office. Several nights a week, he tends to grieving families at the Alfred D. Thomas Funeral Home in Milton. (Last month, he worked 11 wakes.)

It's a perfect part-time gig because wakes "don't start until I get out of court," he said.

"People come up to me at funerals and ask if I'll be there the next day, and I say, `No, I'll be in court,' " he said.

"People are shocked all the time. People assume lawyers make a lot of money . . . but not on this side of it."

Dunleavy, 27, was a competitive Irish step dancer when she landed a job in the Plymouth district attorney's office. She started giving dance lessons in 2004 to earn extra cash. In January, she and a business partner started the Dunleavy Shaffer School of Irish Dance.

Stephen Patten, a 31-year-old assistant district attorney in Essex County, splits his time between Gloucester District Court and Newburyport District Court, and then works the evening shift at a health club in Beverly.

Before getting the part-time job at the health club, Patten worked at Stop & Shop in North Beverly.

He was stationed at the supermarket's deli counter, where he sliced meat, served customers, cleaned equipment, and mopped floors for 20 hours each week.

Acquaintances and former high school classmates occasionally would come in to Stop & Shop. When they saw him working in the deli, they'd ask, "Aren't you a lawyer now?"

Patten would reply, "I am, and I pay $1,000 a month in school loans."

He said his girlfriend, a paralegal in Boston, makes more than he does. But he can't imagine leaving his prosecutor's job.

"It's a wonderful, wonderful occupation," he said. "I would do it the rest of my life if I can afford it. Having a second job has allowed me to continue to do what I love."

Emily Sweeney can be reached at esweeney@globe.com.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: rev on July 14, 2006, 02:45:28 PM

People like you amuse me. You spend your whole lives convincing yourself that you are better than other people because of your pay check, or your degree, or your school... You register at a law forum and tell seasoned law students that they will be ambulance chasers?


Conventional wisdom holds that lawyers are like blood sucking leeches to a big animal. You've probably heard that if you find that perfect case and round-up all the clients it could be instant retirement for the rest of your life. For instance, many of the medical companies and big corporations will settle even before going to court so that it doesn't tarnish their public image.

Well, it's not that simple. The big money cases are few and far between. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of million plus cases you'll be working. Most are around $20,000.

The million dollar cases are a LOT of work. First, you gotta find the perfect client -- preferably one who does not think he won the lottery for a fender-bender. I mean seriously injured or seriously screwed over. Then you got do all the preliminary investigation. Then you got to go through settlement negotiations before you file suit. Then you file suit. Then you gotta go through long protracted discovery. The usual limits are usually waived by agreement in these cases. You can be dealing with literally hundreds of interrogatories and requests for production -- to your client. Then you have to propound the same on the jerkface defendant. Then you gotta wade through all that stuff. Then you gotta supplement the discovery. Then you take depositions -- usually lots of experts (which you already located) which tend to run to the thousands of dollars. Then you gotta go through more settlement negotiations. If you are lucky, it ends here. If not, you gotta go through trial. If you win, then you might get a real settlement offer to avoid an appeal. If not, you get to go through the appeals process. We are talking 4 or 5 years with no money coming in on this case, but lots going out. The experts want to be paid up front. The deposition company won't wait until after the case is over to be paid. There is a lot of time and effort that goes into these major cases.

What really keeps the firm going is the smaller cases, the $20,000 - $50,000 ones that hopefully settle quick. PI can have big payoffs, but they take a TON of effort.



if you doubt this poster, i recommend reading 'a civil action'

that poor bastard won and still lost everything.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: so on July 14, 2006, 04:54:08 PM

SECTION: METRO/REGION; Pg. B3

LENGTH: 533 words

HEADLINE: PROSECUTORS MOONLIGHT TO MAKE ENDS MEET;
ASSISTANT DAS SAY THEY LOVE 1ST JOBS

BYLINE: BY EMILY SWEENEY, GLOBE STAFF

BODY:


After spending all day in court, Assistant District Attorney John McLaughlin often drives his '98 Ford Explorer to a second job at a funeral home in East Milton Square. Assistant District Attorney Suzanne Dunleavy spends her nights and weekends teaching Irish step dancing classes for extra money. Other cash-strapped prosecutors moonlight tending bar, wiping tables, mopping supermarket floors, or painting houses. One drives the Zamboni at an ice rink.

The starting salary for assistant district attorneys is $35,000, not enough for many young prosecutors to live on and to pay off their law school loans.

Fifteen percent of the state's assistant district attorneys work second jobs, according to a 2004 survey by the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association. In Suffolk County, 1 in 5 moonlights.

McLaughlin, 32, has friends working at private law firms who make double his salary. But his frequent court work he has tried some 300 cases brings rewards that cannot be measured in cash, he said.

"I love this job; I like working with the victims," he said. "There's nothing better than winning a case for a victim. It lets people know that the system works sometimes."

To be an assistant district attorney, "I think you have to have a second job," he said. "We lose a lot of people because they just can't afford it."

McLaughlin has had a second job throughout his seven-year career at the Plymouth district attorney's office. Several nights a week, he tends to grieving families at the Alfred D. Thomas Funeral Home in Milton. (Last month, he worked 11 wakes.)

It's a perfect part-time gig because wakes "don't start until I get out of court," he said.

"People come up to me at funerals and ask if I'll be there the next day, and I say, `No, I'll be in court,' " he said.

"People are shocked all the time. People assume lawyers make a lot of money . . . but not on this side of it."

Dunleavy, 27, was a competitive Irish step dancer when she landed a job in the Plymouth district attorney's office. She started giving dance lessons in 2004 to earn extra cash. In January, she and a business partner started the Dunleavy Shaffer School of Irish Dance.

Stephen Patten, a 31-year-old assistant district attorney in Essex County, splits his time between Gloucester District Court and Newburyport District Court, and then works the evening shift at a health club in Beverly.

Before getting the part-time job at the health club, Patten worked at Stop & Shop in North Beverly.

He was stationed at the supermarket's deli counter, where he sliced meat, served customers, cleaned equipment, and mopped floors for 20 hours each week.

Acquaintances and former high school classmates occasionally would come in to Stop & Shop. When they saw him working in the deli, they'd ask, "Aren't you a lawyer now?"

Patten would reply, "I am, and I pay $1,000 a month in school loans."

He said his girlfriend, a paralegal in Boston, makes more than he does. But he can't imagine leaving his prosecutor's job.

"It's a wonderful, wonderful occupation," he said. "I would do it the rest of my life if I can afford it. Having a second job has allowed me to continue to do what I love."

Emily Sweeney can be reached at esweeney@globe.com.


Depressingly enlightening! Thanks for posting it!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: fenway024 on July 14, 2006, 08:16:43 PM
I posted the Boston Globe article above.  One of the problems for "poor" lawyers is that people believe that there are no poor lawyers.  People are always shocked to find out the ADAs and Public Defenders in Mass have starting salaries of $35,000, and that those salaries have not been adjusted for nearly a decade.  We love the job that we do, but we simply want to be paid a "living" wage.  So, yes there are "poor" lawyers out there, but they are poor because they are extremely dedicated and love their work.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: tuned on July 20, 2006, 02:19:57 AM
Corporate recruiters who heavily court 2Ls each fall play an ego-reinforcing role for student. Although students are really supportive of each other there's still a lot of uncertainty. That's where the job recruiters play a big role because they really want you to work for them and unless you've done really well in class you don't know if the law school really wants you. There's not a lot of ego-stroking in class whereas the recruiters really do that. It's like realizing that you're still really competent in spite of how the classes made you feel. The recruiters are willing to fly you around the country and put you up in the best hotels. It's like instant gratification.

Insecurity making law students vulnerable to ego-stroking by corporate recruiters. Recruiters alleviate the "uncertainty" about self-worth generated by the first-year experience. Recruiters make students feel like "they really want you" -- a feelin that law school does not produce "unless you've done really well in class."

Law school, of course, does not end when the corporate recruiters leave campus. Between the fall of 2L year and graduation, at least two other experiences can deepen the feelings of inadequacy. The first is the clerkship season. Unlike the fall corporate job fest, not everyone who applies for judicial clerkships will get one. Many people who apply discover the hard way how competitive it is, and the experience -- particularly when fellow classmates are getting interviews and offers -- can be crushing. During this process, the gulf separating the students who performed well on first-year exams or made the Law Review and those who did not becomes most evident. Yet again, no one talks about it, or if they do, it is with the hushed tones of conveying a confidence, of admitting a failing, of voicing a source of humiliation. Because a clear hierarchy of judges and courts signals to the student and others exactly where this student fits into the rigid pecking order of the legal community, even those students who do secure clerkships can experience the process as ego-bruising if they found themselves passed over by the most prestigious judges. Failure to secure a clerkship at all can be even worse, providing a substantial blow to an already battered sense of self-confidence.

Working at a firm during the summer after 2L year also reinforces the process. At their firms, students find that their affiliation with the law school brings them some kind of respect and admiration, as well as the expectation that they will produce quality work. The students in the middle of the law school pack will likely not have enjoyed such positive reinforcement for some time, and it may lead to a renewed sense of the bifurcation of self along the lines described above: a secret "knowledge" that one is only of average ability in the legal context combined with a public self that seeks to convey self-assurance to match the perception of outsiders regarding how it must feel to be a law student. Because the summer experience fosters and enhances this bifurcation, the prospect of returning to the firm after graduation can come to seem extremely appealing. It can also, however, reinforce the sense that one has become, after all, a "corporate tool" who no longer possesses the wherewithal to pursue a career personally tailored to aspirations formerly held.

This is the ultimate effect of the process: any notion that a law degree confers great possibilities has long since been abandoned. Graduates are by no means broken, but their sense of agency has been sorely undermined. In general, they no longer view themselves as capable of having an impact on the world, much less setting it on fire.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: inconclusive on July 20, 2006, 03:54:50 PM
(http://www.alwayshard.com/toplevel/suits2001.jpg)
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: klinex on July 21, 2006, 03:14:42 AM
Quote
[...] Graduates are by no means broken, but their sense of agency has been sorely undermined. In general, they no longer view themselves as capable of having an impact on the world, much less setting it on fire.

What do you mean by "sense of agency"?
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: entelle on July 21, 2006, 06:49:38 PM
According to Wittgenstein (1958), the sense of agency involves a primitive notion of the self used as subject, which does not rely on any prior perceptual identification and which is immune to error through misidentification. However, the neuroscience of action and the neuropsychology of schizophrenia show the existence of specific cognitive processes underlying the sense of agency -- the "Who" system -- which is disrupted in delusions of control.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: i on August 14, 2006, 03:19:21 PM

According to Wittgenstein (1958), the sense of agency involves a primitive notion of the self used as subject, which does not rely on any prior perceptual identification and which is immune to error through misidentification. However, the neuroscience of action and the neuropsychology of schizophrenia show the existence of specific cognitive processes underlying the sense of agency -- the "Who" system -- which is disrupted in delusions of control.


So basically it's self as a subject !
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Amethyst on September 30, 2006, 10:03:30 PM

So basically,

money = *&^%
capitalism = anal


In a market society, a thing is not only a mysterious "social hieroglyphic," it is not only "a receptacle" under which social production relations among people are hidden. A thing is an intermediary in social relations, and the circulation of things is inseparably related to the establishment and realization of the productive relations among people. The movement of the prices of things on the market is not only the reflection of the productive relations among people; it is the only possible form of their manifestation in a market society. The thing acquires specific social characteristics in a market economy (for example, the properties of value, money, capital, and so on), due to which the thing not only hides the production relations among people, but it also organizes them, serving as a connecting link between people. More accurately, it conceals the production relations precisely because the production relations only take place in the form of relations among things. When we bring the products of our labor into relation with each other as values, it is not because we see in these articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human labor. Quite the contrary: whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labor, the different kinds of labor expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it. Exchange and the equalization of things on the market bring about a social connection among the commodity producers and unify the working activity of people.

We consider it necessary to mention that by "things" we mean only the products of labor, just as Marx did. This qualification of the concept of "thing" is not only permissible, but indispensable, since we are analyzing the circulation of things on the market as they are connected with the working activity of people. We are interested in those things whose market regulation influences the working activity of commodity producers in a particular way. And the products of labor are such things.

The circulation of things -- to the extent that they acquire the specific social properties of value and money -- does not only express production relations among men, but it creates them. By the currency of the circulating medium, the connexion between buyers and sellers is not merely expressed. This connexion is originated by, and exists in, the circulation alone. As a matter of fact, the role of money as a medium of circulation is contrasted by Marx with its role as a means of payment, which expresses a social relation that was in existence long before. However, it is obvious that even though the payment of money takes place, in this case, after the act of purchase and sale, namely after the establishment of social relations between the seller and the buyer, the equalization of money and commodities took place at the instant when the act took place, and thus created the social relation. Money serves as an ideal means of purchase. Although existing only in the promise of the buyer to pay, it causes the commodity to change hands.

Thus money is not only a "symbol," a sign, of social production relations which are concealed under it. By uncovering the naivete of the monetary system, which assigned the characteristics of money to its material or natural properties, Marx at the same time threw out the opposite view of money as a "symbol" of social relations which exist alongside money. According to him, the conception which assigns social relations to things per se is as incorrect as the conception which sees a thing only as a "symbol," a "sign" of social production relations. The thing acquires the property of value, money, capital, etc., not because of its natural properties but because of those social production relations with which it is connected in the commodity economy. Thus social production relations are not only "symbolized" by things, but are realized through things.

Money, as we have seen, is not only a "symbol." In some cases, money represents only a transcient and objective reflex of the prices of commodities. The transfer of money from hand to hand is only a means for the transfer of goods. In this case, its functional existence absorbs, so to say, its material existence, and it can be replaced by the mere symbol of paper money. But even though "formally" separated from metallic substance, paper money nevertheless represents an "objectification" of production relations among people. In the commodity economy, things, the products of labor, have a dual essence: material (natural-technical) and functional (social).
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: touhy on September 30, 2006, 10:36:44 PM

In a market society, a thing is not only a mysterious "social hieroglyphic," it is not only "a receptacle" under which social production relations among people are hidden. A thing is an intermediary in social relations, and the circulation of things is inseparably related to the establishment and realization of the productive relations among people. The movement of the prices of things on the market is not only the reflection of the productive relations among people; it is the only possible form of their manifestation in a market society. The thing acquires specific social characteristics in a market economy (for example, the properties of value, money, capital, and so on), due to which the thing not only hides the production relations among people, but it also organizes them, serving as a connecting link between people. More accurately, it conceals the production relations precisely because the production relations only take place in the form of relations among things. When we bring the products of our labor into relation with each other as values, it is not because we see in these articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human labor. Quite the contrary: whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labor, the different kinds of labor expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it. Exchange and the equalization of things on the market bring about a social connection among the commodity producers and unify the working activity of people.

We consider it necessary to mention that by "things" we mean only the products of labor, just as Marx did. This qualification of the concept of "thing" is not only permissible, but indispensable, since we are analyzing the circulation of things on the market as they are connected with the working activity of people. We are interested in those things whose market regulation influences the working activity of commodity producers in a particular way. And the products of labor are such things.

The circulation of things -- to the extent that they acquire the specific social properties of value and money -- does not only express production relations among men, but it creates them. By the currency of the circulating medium, the connexion between buyers and sellers is not merely expressed. This connexion is originated by, and exists in, the circulation alone. As a matter of fact, the role of money as a medium of circulation is contrasted by Marx with its role as a means of payment, which expresses a social relation that was in existence long before. However, it is obvious that even though the payment of money takes place, in this case, after the act of purchase and sale, namely after the establishment of social relations between the seller and the buyer, the equalization of money and commodities took place at the instant when the act took place, and thus created the social relation. Money serves as an ideal means of purchase. Although existing only in the promise of the buyer to pay, it causes the commodity to change hands.

Thus money is not only a "symbol," a sign, of social production relations which are concealed under it. By uncovering the naivete of the monetary system, which assigned the characteristics of money to its material or natural properties, Marx at the same time threw out the opposite view of money as a "symbol" of social relations which exist alongside money. According to him, the conception which assigns social relations to things per se is as incorrect as the conception which sees a thing only as a "symbol," a "sign" of social production relations. The thing acquires the property of value, money, capital, etc., not because of its natural properties but because of those social production relations with which it is connected in the commodity economy. Thus social production relations are not only "symbolized" by things, but are realized through things.

Money, as we have seen, is not only a "symbol." In some cases, money represents only a transcient and objective reflex of the prices of commodities. The transfer of money from hand to hand is only a means for the transfer of goods. In this case, its functional existence absorbs, so to say, its material existence, and it can be replaced by the mere symbol of paper money. But even though "formally" separated from metallic substance, paper money nevertheless represents an "objectification" of production relations among people. In the commodity economy, things, the products of labor, have a dual essence: material (natural-technical) and functional (social).


In essence what is said here is basically that tradable commodities are the product of human labor appearing as "independent being endowed with life" through a process of "commodity fetishism" in which certain compelling images come to eclipse the objects they portray. The conversion of labor into money is a double transformation, therefore a double alienation -- of labor into commodity produced, and of the commodity into money ..
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: naom on October 06, 2006, 03:01:36 AM

Thus money is not only a "symbol," a sign, of social production relations which are concealed under it. By uncovering the naivete of the monetary system, which assigned the characteristics of money to its material or natural properties, Marx at the same time threw out the opposite view of money as a "symbol" of social relations which exist alongside money. According to him, the conception which assigns social relations to things per se is as incorrect as the conception which sees a thing only as a "symbol," a "sign" of social production relations. The thing acquires the property of value, money, capital, etc., not because of its natural properties but because of those social production relations with which it is connected in the commodity economy. Thus social production relations are not only "symbolized" by things, but are realized through things.

Money, as we have seen, is not only a "symbol." In some cases, money represents only a transcient and objective reflex of the prices of commodities. The transfer of money from hand to hand is only a means for the transfer of goods. In this case, its functional existence absorbs, so to say, its material existence, and it can be replaced by the mere symbol of paper money. But even though "formally" separated from metallic substance, paper money nevertheless represents an "objectification" of production relations among people. In the commodity economy, things, the products of labor, have a dual essence: material (natural-technical) and functional (social).


How about digital money? Digital money is perfect money, flawless money, intangible money. It is money that has been robbed of its substance -- the opportunity to get scuffed, worn, dirty and perhaps lost. It is networked money, and point-of-sale money, and money on a card, and money on a computer. It is money that weighs nothing and moves at the speed of light. It is money incarnated, finally, as pure information. When money cannot be touched, when it turns to electrons, when it dematerializes, some people start to worry about what they really have. Will it enough for a bank, or a credit-card company, or even the Government to validate some chip as "money" -- can it ever be as real as a dollar bill?


Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: dpor on October 08, 2006, 07:11:14 PM
naom, it seems you're really concerned about this digital thing! But don't fuss over it, I mean the familiar EFT and direct deposit are e-money after all! Singapore has a very successful electronic money implementation for its public transportation system (commuter trains, bus, etc), which is very similar to Hong Kong's Octopus card and based on the same type of card (FeliCa). The electronic money, known as EZ-Link by most Singaporeans, is a card the size of an ordinary credit card; it has a smart chip plus a wireless communication module. Passengers just need to tap the EZ-Link when they board the bus and tap the card again when they alight; the bus fare system automatically deducts the calculated bus fare from the EZ-Link value. Recently, McDonalds is setting up EZ-Link payment infrastructure at their fast-food branches all over Singapore's main island. It is believed that in the near future EZ-Link will gain more acceptance as a convenient electronic money solution in Singapore.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: J. Alex on October 27, 2006, 12:49:39 PM

I think this is a troll thread.  There is no way you were GW law review, top of your class, wanted biglaw, and are now making $50K per year lol.


Erapitt, money is like a big male private part. The fact that they'll give you some is not going to make you love 'em.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: frisky on October 30, 2006, 01:30:35 AM

Corporate recruiters who heavily court 2Ls each fall play an ego-reinforcing role for student. Although students are really supportive of each other there's still a lot of uncertainty. That's where the job recruiters play a big role because they really want you to work for them and unless you've done really well in class you don't know if the law school really wants you. There's not a lot of ego-stroking in class whereas the recruiters really do that. It's like realizing that you're still really competent in spite of how the classes made you feel. The recruiters are willing to fly you around the country and put you up in the best hotels. It's like instant gratification.

Insecurity making law students vulnerable to ego-stroking by corporate recruiters. Recruiters alleviate the "uncertainty" about self-worth generated by the first-year experience. Recruiters make students feel like "they really want you" -- a feelin that law school does not produce "unless you've done really well in class."

Law school, of course, does not end when the corporate recruiters leave campus. Between the fall of 2L year and graduation, at least two other experiences can deepen the feelings of inadequacy. The first is the clerkship season. Unlike the fall corporate job fest, not everyone who applies for judicial clerkships will get one. Many people who apply discover the hard way how competitive it is, and the experience -- particularly when fellow classmates are getting interviews and offers -- can be crushing. During this process, the gulf separating the students who performed well on first-year exams or made the Law Review and those who did not becomes most evident. Yet again, no one talks about it, or if they do, it is with the hushed tones of conveying a confidence, of admitting a failing, of voicing a source of humiliation. Because a clear hierarchy of judges and courts signals to the student and others exactly where this student fits into the rigid pecking order of the legal community, even those students who do secure clerkships can experience the process as ego-bruising if they found themselves passed over by the most prestigious judges. Failure to secure a clerkship at all can be even worse, providing a substantial blow to an already battered sense of self-confidence.

Working at a firm during the summer after 2L year also reinforces the process. At their firms, students find that their affiliation with the law school brings them some kind of respect and admiration, as well as the expectation that they will produce quality work. The students in the middle of the law school pack will likely not have enjoyed such positive reinforcement for some time, and it may lead to a renewed sense of the bifurcation of self along the lines described above: a secret "knowledge" that one is only of average ability in the legal context combined with a public self that seeks to convey self-assurance to match the perception of outsiders regarding how it must feel to be a law student. Because the summer experience fosters and enhances this bifurcation, the prospect of returning to the firm after graduation can come to seem extremely appealing. It can also, however, reinforce the sense that one has become, after all, a "corporate tool" who no longer possesses the wherewithal to pursue a career personally tailored to aspirations formerly held.

This is the ultimate effect of the process: any notion that a law degree confers great possibilities has long since been abandoned. Graduates are by no means broken, but their sense of agency has been sorely undermined. In general, they no longer view themselves as capable of having an impact on the world, much less setting it on fire.


I tend to believe this is relevant for the top law schools. I mean, most law students at the other schools, especially TTTs, don't have a perm job offer long after they graduate.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: llavoy on November 01, 2006, 07:35:07 PM
I found the most depressing possible thread to post on :)

Its apparent that there is a great deal of fear and uncertainty both among law students (look at how much money the LEEWS people make) and new lawyers, but this problem isn't restricted to the law. New professionals in almost every field have the same difficulties. My friend is finishing up her masters in cellular and molecular biology, is at the very top of her department, and currently has zero job prospects. A similar thing will have happened to the computer science people, who ten years ago were on top of the world.

Nonetheless, I don't think that the current system could possibly exist if people really are putting in way more money in tuition and opportunity costs than the JD is worth; not for this long, something would give. I would think that if the pressure from educational loans is rising while actual job prospects are falling, we would be seeing an increase in defaulted law-school loans over time, right? I havn't been able to track down the data, but if anyone's got anything on this it might be helpfull.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: gabryponte on November 07, 2006, 06:37:58 PM

Before getting the part-time job at the health club, Patten worked at Stop & Shop in North Beverly. He was stationed at the supermarket's deli counter, where he sliced meat, served customers, cleaned equipment, and mopped floors for 20 hours each week.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi3Fc1xsxcc&mode=related&search=
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: l a l a l a on November 18, 2006, 09:51:48 PM
lol
Title: The Well Hidden Truth-Basic Elements of Money: Basic Elements of Money
Post by: mata on January 04, 2007, 04:49:26 PM

So basically,

money = *&^%
capitalism = anal


In a market society, a thing is not only a mysterious "social hieroglyphic," it is not only "a receptacle" under which social production relations among people are hidden. A thing is an intermediary in social relations, and the circulation of things is inseparably related to the establishment and realization of the productive relations among people. The movement of the prices of things on the market is not only the reflection of the productive relations among people; it is the only possible form of their manifestation in a market society. The thing acquires specific social characteristics in a market economy (for example, the properties of value, money, capital, and so on), due to which the thing not only hides the production relations among people, but it also organizes them, serving as a connecting link between people. More accurately, it conceals the production relations precisely because the production relations only take place in the form of relations among things. When we bring the products of our labor into relation with each other as values, it is not because we see in these articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human labor. Quite the contrary: whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labor, the different kinds of labor expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it. Exchange and the equalization of things on the market bring about a social connection among the commodity producers and unify the working activity of people.

We consider it necessary to mention that by "things" we mean only the products of labor, just as Marx did. This qualification of the concept of "thing" is not only permissible, but indispensable, since we are analyzing the circulation of things on the market as they are connected with the working activity of people. We are interested in those things whose market regulation influences the working activity of commodity producers in a particular way. And the products of labor are such things.

The circulation of things -- to the extent that they acquire the specific social properties of value and money -- does not only express production relations among men, but it creates them. By the currency of the circulating medium, the connexion between buyers and sellers is not merely expressed. This connexion is originated by, and exists in, the circulation alone. As a matter of fact, the role of money as a medium of circulation is contrasted by Marx with its role as a means of payment, which expresses a social relation that was in existence long before. However, it is obvious that even though the payment of money takes place, in this case, after the act of purchase and sale, namely after the establishment of social relations between the seller and the buyer, the equalization of money and commodities took place at the instant when the act took place, and thus created the social relation. Money serves as an ideal means of purchase. Although existing only in the promise of the buyer to pay, it causes the commodity to change hands.

Thus money is not only a "symbol," a sign, of social production relations which are concealed under it. By uncovering the naivete of the monetary system, which assigned the characteristics of money to its material or natural properties, Marx at the same time threw out the opposite view of money as a "symbol" of social relations which exist alongside money. According to him, the conception which assigns social relations to things per se is as incorrect as the conception which sees a thing only as a "symbol," a "sign" of social production relations. The thing acquires the property of value, money, capital, etc., not because of its natural properties but because of those social production relations with which it is connected in the commodity economy. Thus social production relations are not only "symbolized" by things, but are realized through things.

Money, as we have seen, is not only a "symbol." In some cases, money represents only a transcient and objective reflex of the prices of commodities. The transfer of money from hand to hand is only a means for the transfer of goods. In this case, its functional existence absorbs, so to say, its material existence, and it can be replaced by the mere symbol of paper money. But even though "formally" separated from metallic substance, paper money nevertheless represents an "objectification" of production relations among people. In the commodity economy, things, the products of labor, have a dual essence: material (natural-technical) and functional (social).


Where does money come from? From where does it get its value? How does it get into circulation? It all seems complicated, but understanding the basic elements of money is not difficult. Our current system has become needlessly complicated in order to hide the truth behind a smokescreen of technicalities. I wrote this simple allegory to illustrate the basic elements of money. These are the secrets that are kept hidden from common knowledge. You will not find it taught in colleges or universities, and you will not find any books with the complete truth, because they could never be published. Of course the masters of our money know that some people are going to question the money system (scheme), so there are plenty of good books that question our corrupt system and are quite accurate until they get into the area of offering solutions, then the solution is almost inevitably a gold standard. Read the following and you will understand why the gold standard is a deception designed to send those perceptive enough to question the money system scurrying off on a wild goose chase, to be hopelessly lost and confused, and maybe even talked into an appealing sounding gold investment.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: mata on January 04, 2007, 04:50:38 PM
The Alchemist who turned lead into gold

Long ago in the country of Outland there was a tiny village named Trope. In a small hovel at the edge of the village, lived an old Alchemist, who was working busily on his quest to turn lead into gold. It would have been any typical summer day in Trope except for one thing. On this day, the Alchemist had a stroke of luck, which would change the lives of everyone in Trope for ever.

A smile slowly proceeded across the Alchemist's crumpled face as he slowly poured the last ingredient into the vat of molten metal, lovingly stirring the concoction with a long heavy ladle. "Perfect" he said to himself as he began pouring the thick mixture from the ladle into the molds. "I've done it! I have finally discovered the secret of turning lead into gold. I shall become the wealthiest man to ever live".

Over the years while he obsessively worked on his project to turn lead into gold, the old Alchemist had experienced much trial and error; he used this time to construct a most cunning plan. He had day dreamed for many years of what he would do, if only he could turn lead into gold.

In those days, gold was used for ornamental purposes, for things such as bracelets and earrings. With this in mind, the old Alchemist reasoned to himself, that after he had produced a significant quantity of gold, one day everyone in Outland would have all the gold they could ever want. He deduced that if that day were to ever arrive, the desire for gold would diminish and its value fade away. This worried him immensely, for his ultimate fear was for gold to become as common as the lead from which it was made.

The Alchemist thought to himself, "I must keep my secret recipe in my head and never reveal it to any other person, and I must manufacture my gold in limited quantities only, that it may always be desirable." The medieval chemist, being a greedy man, was not happy with limiting the amount of gold, he could create. "I must discover a new use for my gold that will make it desirable to everyone, no matter how much I produce. I know there must be a way." he thought to himself. "There must be a way."

One day a brilliant idea burst into his head. "That's it!" His grin blossoming into an exuberant smile, revealing the total absence of teeth. "I shall make my gold into little round ingots, and I will call them coyens." This in Outlandish means token. "Then I will loan my coyens to the villagers for use as munee." This means wage in Outlandish. "I will convince the villagers to use my gold coyens as munee for their trade. My gold will then be in constant demand, no matter how much I produce. I will indeed become wealthy beyond belief!"

"But what is this munee?" The Baker asked gruffly, as he suspiciously eyed the Alchemist, his head thoughtfully cocked to one side while contemplated this strange new concept. The Baker was known to be the wisest man in the village. With that in mind, the Alchemist needed the Baker's support for his new plan, or had little hope the villagers would ever accept it. The sensible Baker though, was having quite a difficult time comprehending this new idea. His village had always used the bartering system of trade. If a villager needed bread, he would work for the Baker, or he would make a trade using an item that was desired by the Baker, such as wheat, or perhaps candlesticks in return for bread. All trade was a matter of negotiating a swap that was acceptable to both parties.

"Munee works like magic." Whispered the wide eyed Alchemist, as he moved closer. "It allows you to trade coyens for merchandise, instead of trading your wares for their wares, or working directly for the person who possesses the Item you need. As a matter of fact, you can work for anyone you wish, and then you can take the munee you've earned and trade it for the things you want. Because my gold is so valuable, one coyen is adequate compensation for an entire day's work. It will be gladly accepted by all"

"Hmmm" Said the baker. "I must admit, this is a very intriguing concept. If munee becomes acceptable to the villagers in the place of their current barter, it would indeed revolutionize our village and make life much more convenient. Please, tell me more."

The Alchemist continued. "Instead of exchanging your bread for the items you want, sell your bread for gold coyen, then you will have munee, to buy what ever you need."

"But how will the villagers get hold of the gold coyens needed to buy my bread?" Asked the Baker.

The alchemist smiled. "The laborers you employ, in your bakery, will get their coins from you, just like the laborers that work in the candlestick factory, will get their coins from the candlestick maker, one for each day they work, eventually all in the village will have plenty of munee to buy bread."

"But where will I get the money to pay my workers?" Asked the Baker, slowly raising his voice, as if he thought the Alchemist was having trouble hearing him.

"You will get your money from the villagers when they come to buy your bread." The baker was indeed puzzled for even though he could see brilliance in the plan he was still somewhat confused, and he had learned from past experience, not to trust the Alchemist.

"It does make since to me how I could use munee to pay my workers, and they in turn, could then use it to buy what they need, either from the butcher, or from the candlestick maker, or from the carpenter, or perhaps even purchase bread from my Bakery, and when they do buy my bread, I will have enough munee to pay my workers, and to buy whatever else I may need for myself. There is, however, an important element that you have not yet explained. How do you intend to distribute these coins into circulation among the villagers, so that this new munee system of trade can be established? Do you suppose to sell them to us? I am afraid, Alchemist, we cannot afford to purchase your gold coyens, you know that we are a poor village. Is this scheme of yours to help you sell your gold?"

Here lied the beauty of the alchemist's carefully planned money system. The Alchemist recognized that barter trade was a simple two party transaction mutually beneficial to both parties. With the new munee system, the Alchemist intended to turn the old two party barter system into a three party transaction between the buyer, seller and himself who would continue to create and own all the munee.

"Don't worry." Replied the Alchemist, "I will handle the distribution of coyens. All I ask is that you take my coyens for your bread, when offered. When you have enough of them, begin paying your workers, one coyen per day." The Baker reluctantly agreed to go along with the new munee, as did the Candlestick Maker, and every other merchant in town. The Village Council also agreed, for they knew that the munee system would only work if they all participated, besides, they longed for the day a more convenient system would come along. After all there where times when, under the barter system, a person would be in need of an item, but had nothing desirable for trade, and working for the person was not always practical. The new munee system promised a solution to this problem.

The Alchemist scurried back to his shop and began making his gold. When he had prepared a goodly amount, he posted a sign in a prominent location in front of his shop. "Get your munee here" said the sign in bold lettering. The sign caused quite a stir amongst the curious villagers. Soon a crowd began to gather. The butcher approached the Alchemist and asked, "What must I do to acquire some of your coyens, so that I may try out munee for myself?" "I shall loan it to you in any quantity you desire." The Alchemist replied cheerfully. "I only ask that you return the munee after an agreed upon period of time. I also require a small amount in addition to what you barrow, as just compensation for my trouble"

This seemed reasonable to the butcher for he believed the Alchemist was doing a great deed for the village. "I am curious about one thing though." Said the butcher. "From where will I acquire the additional munee that I shall need to pay your compensation?

"It's simply a matter of honing your abilities as a business man." The alchemist said slyly. "You must determine the correct price to charge for your meat. To do that, you must first decide how much it costs to buy the livestock and to prepare your cuts of meat, then figure in the additional amount required to meet the needs of your family, which will be your profit, and lastly, include a small amount to compensate me for the use of my money. Consider all of these expenses to determine the necessary price to charge for each cut. If you are wise in your pricing, then you will have all the money you need to make a good living, pay back your loan, and also pay for the interest. You will find success, and all the munee you desire from the munee that already exists in circulation, once everyone begins to use my new money system."

The Butcher warmly agreed to the terms of the Alchemist, and was first to take out a loan. Soon many of the villagers were coming to the Alchemist to take out their own loans, though the wary Alchemist would not loan his munee to just anyone. He was careful to make loans only to those who possessed some wealth of their own, for use as collateral, mostly the village businessmen. He knew they would be more likely to make good on their payment and even if they did not, he could always go about seizing their assets. No one in the village could deny him his moral right to be compensated for his valuable munee.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: mata on January 04, 2007, 04:51:26 PM
At first the new system worked fabulously. The villagers began using munee exclusively for their trade. Within a short time, the Alchemist became wealthy beyond belief. The Alchemist however, was not alone in his gain; some of the villagers were very good at using the new munee system, and also became wealthy. They seemed to possess a better grasp of the intricacies of munee, and used it to their advantage. Before long many where overcome by their own greed, and began to conspire with each other along with the Alchemist and several members of the village council, to manipulate prices and wages, and to conduct all kinds of secretive business dealings.

To the other extreme, there where many villagers who managed their munee quite poorly, and soon found themselves in the unpleasant position of not having enough munee to pay back their loans. When this happened the Alchemist did not miss the opportunity to take possession of their property and businesses in return for their nonpayment, forcing the bankrupt villagers to look toward those successful businessmen for employment. Many villagers who suffered losses from this new munee system became angry, but the Alchemist had the support of the Village Council and all of the wealthy business men, who stood by ready to buy up the businesses acquired by the Alchemist, at discount prices. More and more of the villagers worked for these wealthy businessmen and feared loosing their jobs, so they kept their feelings to themselves, even though they where slowly feeling the squeeze. The new business owners began to reduce wages and raise prices in order to increase their profits, and to pay the Alchemist for the use of his munee. Things began to change in the tiny village of Trope. Where as before, people were neighborly and helpful, now everyone was either out for their own selfish gain, or had little money left over to help the needy, even though they desired to. The new wealthy villagers continued to increase, while everyone else seemed to have less and less.

As it turned out, one of the village businessmen having trouble making his loan payments was the Baker, mainly because he refused to raise the price for his bread. One day the Alchemist decided it was high time to pay the Baker a visit, and collect for his outstanding loan.

"Can you not see, Alchemist, that I am a busy man? Said the Baker. I do not have the money to pay you at this time; you will receive due payment, when I have the munee."

"You are a simple fool." Said the Alchemist sternly. "Why don't you raise the price of your bread, so that you are able make your loan payment?"

"I will not." The indignant Baker chortled. "The people of this village can scarcely afford to pay a higher price for bread." The Alchemist prideful of his wealth and embolden by his new found status in the community demanded payment at once or he would seize the bakery. The Baker was honest and simple, but also sensible. He well understood the trickery of the Alchemist and grasped the nuances of the new munee system better then anyone else in the village of Trope.

"I am finished with your money Alchemist." The Baker replied angrily. "I intend to return to barter."

"You cannot return to barter. You must continue to use munee in order to pay your loan. You have no choice in this matter." The Alchemist shot back.

"You cannot control my life Alchemist, I am a free man. I will do as I wish. I want nothing more to do with your evil munee." declared the Baker. "Tonight I will call a town meeting, and we will discuss this new money business, we shall let the villagers decide for themselves whether or not they wish to continue with this munee system." "As you wish." The Alchemist said, as he turned abruptly and marched out of the bakery, for he had no fear of the villagers rejecting his munee, they where hooked, and he knew it. The Alchemist was sure of his cunning, along with his newly found power among the village wealthy. He considered the commoners to be naive, and figured they would not be capable of understanding such a complicated system as munee. Besides the convenience was obvious to everyone. They were simple people, used to simple barter. The Alchemist knew it would be of little challenge, for him to fool them again.

The Baker went immediately to the Village Crier, and asked him to spread the word. "All are invited to the village gathering that shall be held tonight, in the village square, concerning the new munee system." "Everyone will surely come to the gathering." Replied the village Crier to the Baker. "For there was much curiosity and tittle-tattle as to what was to become of the new munee system.

A noticeable air of excitement was among the villagers, as the Baker stepped up to the podium, and began to pound the heavy wooden gavel. The low rumble of the crowd quickly fading off into silence. "This village gathering is now in session" announced the Baker. "I wish to open this gathering by explaining to you, the villagers, and to the honorable village council, if I may be so bold, the process by which our new system of munee operates."

"As you all well know" Began the Baker, "In return for your work, you are paid munee. What is important to remember about this transaction, is that the munee you work for, and the coyens you receive in compensation, is the direct representation of the labor you've expended. These tokens of your labor can then be used to buy what ever you may wish. This is the important point I wish to make, it is your labor that gives munee its value. Money is simply labor in a tangible form."

"I know for a fact, through my conversations with many of you, that you have mistakenly perceived the value of munee to be derived from the gold of which the coyens are made. Although you are correct in assessing a value to the gold coins, based on the intrinsic value of the gold from which they are made, this intrinsic value alone does not make them munee. Gold will always have a value of its own no matter what form it may take, as does rubies and diamonds, but intrinsic value is not the same as munee value."

"There is only one element by which a legitimate monetary value is derived and qualifies a substance as munee. That element is common to each and every one of us, and our self-ownership of it identifies us as free individuals. This is the common element of labor. If we were slaves, we would not be in the position to make such a claim. We however are free men, and the hallmark of individual freedom is self-ownership of labor."

"Munee is the vehicle by which the fruits of our labor channel through the economy, as we pursue the pleasures of life. We are free to spend our labor where ever we please. When you work for a day you receive a day's wage, one gold coyen. The gold coyen you receive is the tangible incarnation of the work you've performed. When you take that coyen and spend it, for the things you desire, you are simply spending your labor. Munee is not authentic unless, and until, work has been performed."

"The fact is, our money is made out of gold and yes, the coyens do carry with them, the intrinsic value of the gold from which they are made. The gold value however, is secondary to the monetary value, derived from expended labor, this secondary value becomes little more then a distraction from the essential element, and complicates the system. Labor is the only ingredient that defines a substance as munee. By creating this dual value, the unscrupulous Alchemist has invented a powerful tool of manipulation, to control our munee, and thereby, our labor."

"Who do you think is the culprit behind the increased prices of late? By receiving a cut of every transaction made in the form of interest payments, the Alchemist benefits handsomely from these high prices.

This inconspicuous culprit can also control the value of our labor, by merely controlling the number of coyens in circulation. It is the Alchemist, who in essence, steals our labor and gradually turns us all into his willing slaves." The Baker stated emphatically to the crowd that had become increasingly restlessness.

The Alchemist was startled and amazed at the perception of the Baker, for even he himself, had considered the value of his coyens, to be derived only from the intrinsic value of the gold, from which they were made. He had not thought much about the element of labor, but only of the value of gold. He believed that gold was the factor that made his coyens desirable to the villagers, and therefore, acceptable as munee. In the beginning his concern was with the overproduction of gold, and the eventual devaluation that would result. He deduced that if he where to loan the gold into circulation, instead of selling it, he could always recall it, by not issuing any more loans. In this way he would always be able to control its quantity. He never concerned himself with the fact that it was labor itself, which lent a special value to the coyens. "Could it be that labor is actually the true Essence of munee?" The Alchemist thought to himself.

The Baker continued. "It seems to me this is a good system of convenience, and is beneficial to us all; to now go back to barter would be a step backwards indeed." The Alchemist began to smile. "There is no evil in munee so long as the substance, creation and distribution of it are benevolent to the laborer." Said the Baker.

Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: mata on January 04, 2007, 04:56:02 PM
Let's begin with its creation. The current method of money creation has become a burden upon our village. Before, when we had the barter system, a trade was normally made between two persons. Now every transaction is between three, the buyer, the seller and the Alchemist. Labor is the ability to create, and as I have already stated, munee represents expended labor, so when we, the creators of our own labor work, we naturally create munee, which is wealth! so why are we allowing the Alchemist to create our munee out of nothing but lead? This gives the Alchemist alone the power to control how much munee is in the system. He is the sole creator of all of our munee. This my friends is a perverse system. If he should take the notion, he could easily overproduce his gold coyens, until they are so plentiful, that they become worth very little, and when the coyens loose their value, your labor has likewise, lost its value. Instead of pegging the value of the coins to the value of our labor, which represents the true nature and value of munee, the Alchemist instead, by using reverse logic, pegs the value of our labor to the intrinsic value of the his coins, which he alone can easily manipulate.

In an opposing scenario, the Alchemist could reduce the money supply by refusing to give out new loans, and by recalling old ones. When this is the cased, those that are tight with their money, and pay as little as possible to their workers, will have accumulated more than those that are generous and free spending with their money. The businessmen who were able to establish a savings can easily pay their loans, however a few of the village businessmen, who carry a narrow profit margin, and have little saved, will inevitably not have enough to pay back their loans. The situation is exacerbated because no new loans are being processed, less munee is now available in circulation because old loans are, at the same time, being steadily paid back, thus continuously retiring more and more money out of the economy. Eventually something has to give.

As we have already seen, when these things happen, the Alchemist assumes the right to confiscate the property of the delinquent businessmen, for nonpayment." The Baker continued. "This is a very corrupt and evil system, for the labor and property of our entire village falls under the indirect control and manipulation of the Alchemist."

There is also the question of distributing munee into circulation. The Alchemist controls distribution of all munee into circulation through debt. He owns all the money in the system. He has only loaned it to us. This is another burden upon our village. I know most of you believe that when you are paid, the money you earn belongs to you. If this is what you believe, then you are badly deceived. Munee is passed into circulation through loans. All munee is owed to the Alchemist, and every coyen must someday be paid back, plus interest. If you default on these payments, he has the right to legally confiscate your property.

"The Alchemist is a gouger", came a distant voice from the audience, the crowd reacted in a concurring surge of angry explicits.

The Alchemist, fearing the wrath of the villagers, stood up hastily, while waving his arms in a downward motion, attempting to quite the increasingly restless crowd. "I would like to reply to the Baker." said the Alchemist as angry boos rang out from the villagers. "First I would like to reassure the Baker that, I have no intention of seizing the Bakery."

"Here, here," said the Butcher, as the wealthy businessmen began to cheer the goodwill gesture of the Alchemist, as an attempt to stifle the boos.

The Alchemist continued, "As you all know, I started this money system as a goodwill gesture toward our village community, and for no other reason. I only ask a tiny profit for myself, in return for the money that I loan. It is just compensation for this great service, which I am providing. Is it my fault that some of our businessmen insist on carelessly handling their money? I must recover my losses. In some cases, I have no choice but to take away their property. Let me remind you, I do not do this sort of thing out of pleasure, or in the pursuit of wealth, but only because I could not long remain in business, if I gave my money away. To be sure, there is no more efficient way to put money into circulation, then by the method which we have adopted, which has served many of us so well. You must admit, it has literally revolutionized our trade. The village needs my munee, and that means they also need me, because only I am able to change lead into gold.

The Baker stood to reply. "You say you are not in pursuit of wealth, yet you are by far the wealthiest man in the community. We must work for our money, yet you can make as much as you please, out of nothing but lead. You are the most powerful man in the village. You have seized three businesses already, and sold them to a small group of wealthy men, who stand behind you and support your every desire. These wealthy men employ everyone in the community. Who dares to cross them? Their relationship to you is mutually beneficial. The desire and the will of the villagers mean nothing to them. Where it not for the high caliber of most of the leaders on our village council, your gold would have served to purchase their influence long ago. It is only a matter of time before your own men will be setting on the Village Council, then who will be able restrain your will? We all shall be answering to your demands."

The Alchemist became enraged. "I do not have to stand for this." He shouted. "I have done many great things for this community, and even if some of you do not appreciate it, there are many others that do. You need me, and you require my gold to make this convenient munee system work.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: mata on January 04, 2007, 04:56:56 PM
The wise old baker looked knowingly at the Alchemist. "I know your secrets." He said in a slow monotone voice. "You see, if we are to be fare with this system of munee, then we need to examine a few things more closely. As I have already pointed out, when we work, we are paid munee for that work. The munee takes on the value of our expended labor, making it portable. It is then used to buy what we need. So if the real value behind munee is labor, it does not then matter what substance it is made from, any sturdy material will suffice. The coyens will simply be the bearers of our expended labor, labor made tangible if you will. It would be far better for us, if our munee was made from a substance that had little, or no intrinsic value of its own, so that it may be taken freely for the value of labor only. A pure munee, liberated from the perplexities congenital to duel value munee systems."

"We do not need your gold for our munee." Said the Baker. "Those that control the value of gold control the value of labor. We shall cut wooden plugs and assign them with numbers, and use them as our munee, and they will work just the same as your gold. When a man works a day for me, I will give him a wooden coyen instead of a gold coyen. When he buys my bread, he will pay with a wooden coyen, instead of a gold coyen, and I will take that wooden coyen and buy what ever I please, and all the villagers will take the wooden coyens, just as they did the gold ones, then we will have little desire for your gold. It will be the responsibility of the Village Council, to make the wooden coins for our village. They will go into circulation at the time work is performed, and then they will have the value of labor behind them. The workers will be the first to take the newly created munee and spend it amongst the village proprietors. The people will finally have money of their own, and it will no longer be owned and created by the Alchemist. The village council will tax the excess coyens back out of the system, so that the supply remains constant. The most important principle to remember is that munee can never officially come into existence, until labor is first performed, and then the value thereof will be imparted into the coyens. Trade will once again become a two party transaction, and no one will be able to control our labor by manipulating our munee."

"It will never work! You are foolish to use wood coins as money!" the Alchemist laughingly exclaimed. "That's the silliest thing I have ever heard!"

"Is it?" Asked the Baker. "I say we should put it to a vote of the villagers." The Village Council agreed, and a vote was taken immediately. The well spoken discernment of the Baker helped a great many of the villagers to understand the concept of munee, even though some were still doubtful, their were enough willing to try the Bakers new plan. The abuses of the Alchemist being fresh in their minds, that the vote easily passed. The Village Council declared that, from that moment on, the only authorized substance to be used for munee, would be the wooden coyens.

The angry Alchemist stomped back to his shop exclaiming, "You'll come crawling back to me in a month, begging me for my coins!" "Our village will be the laughing stock of Outland!"

Thankfully, the Baker understood that munee and labor are one in the same, and saw that it was only logical for munee to originate at the point in the process, where labor is performed. Munee created by the labor of the people, would be worthy to spend throughout the village. It would not be legitimate, equitable or natural to create and distribute money at any other point in the process. He knew that if the creation and distribution of munee was to be just, it must follow labor. Any system that allows the value of labor to be manipulated by a third party, such as commodity munee surely does, should be vigorously rejected by the people. The new munee had no commodity value. If it was not for the labor that was backing it, it would indeed be worthless pieces of wood, but since the creation of money now coincides with the labor of the workers, who then spend it into circulation, they always know the value of their munee because it is the value of their labor, and it belongs only to them.

So the council began making wooden coyens, numbering them, and placing a special stamp upon each of them, making them difficult to copy. The coins however, did not become official money, until they where first worked for. At the end of the day the village workers would come to the village square and pick up their days wages. They could then spend them at the various shops in the village. Soon munee was plentiful and the village council began using a sales tax to withdrawal a certain quantity of munee, back out of circulation, so that the amount in circulation always remained constant. This was easily done, since they already knew exactly how many where made, they likewise knew how much should be taken back out of circulation, in order to maintain the desired amount, at all times. This gave the new munee a constant value, and it became a very stable system. The villagers where so happy with their new munee system, that they elected the Baker to be the first mayor of Trope.

The bitter alchemist was exceedingly distraught over these events, and swore no one would ever know the secret of turning gold into lead. His spirit broken, he died a few years later, taking his secret to the grave with him.

The new village Alchemist, after analyzing the gold coyens, made out of lead by the old alchemist, discovered that his gold was actually a yellow colored lead alloy, closely resembling gold. Only an expert Alchemist could tell the difference. When this was revealed to the village people, they realized that during the entire time they thought they were using gold as their munee, they where actually using worthless lead. The fact that it nevertheless had value to them as munee, further reinforced the Bakers theory, that the only authentic value behind munee, is the value of labor, even if the substance chosen to be used as munee, has it`s own intrinsic value, such as gold certainly would. Gold was commodity value, but labor is monetary value.

The villagers loved their munee and it was freely taken for exchange by all, even neighboring villages. The prosperity of Trope was unsurpassed throughout all of Outland.


The Well Hidden Truth

A quaint story of an obscure primitive village existing long before our times? Could this unsophisticated money system possibly have anything in common with our modern technical society? Believe it or not, this allegory represents all of the basic elements of our modern money. Of course we do not use gold, but gold is usually the only solution offered as the logical recourse for the current system, while all fingers point damningly at our fiat currency (money that does not have a value of its own). As you can see such a solution is bogus disinformation designed to mislead those that question the system. All are careful never to mention the true value of money, which is labor. Yes we do have a fiat money system, but the creation and distribution of our fiat money is corrupt, and works just the same as the gold coins in the preceding allegory. Just as the gold coins were created and loaned out by the alchemist, our money is created and loaned into circulation by the Federal Reserve, as if it already had value. The truth is, this money is worthless just as the wooden coins where worthless until after they were worked for. Because the powers that be have convinced us that our fiat money somehow has a magical value of its own (just because they say it does) and they alone have acquired the power to create and distribute it, they can easily manipulate its value. The village council represents our Federal Government, which has become corrupt, bought and paid for by those that control our money. The group of wealthy business men represents our monopoly corporations, that work hand and glove with our corrupt government and the money masters. And the Baker represents what could happen if the word ever got out to enough people regarding the esoteric secrets of money, and how it is used as a tool to steal our labor, and make us all into their willing slaves.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: payola on March 23, 2007, 12:04:15 PM
Very intriguing, mata, thanx for posting it!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: tor on April 08, 2007, 09:26:38 PM

Erapitt, money is like a big male private part. The fact that they\'ll give you some is not going to make you love \'em.


I am not sure what exactly do you mean -- that just because you have a lot of fun when engaging in sex with someone who has a big male private part you won\'t necessarily love that person, or that it\'s because that person cannot possibly insert his male private part fully into one\'s hole that the level of sexual fulfillment won\'t be as great as to guarantee loving that person ??
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: bobbykurva on April 09, 2007, 10:05:03 AM
You all suck.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Bob D on April 09, 2007, 07:21:22 PM
Nonetheless, I don't think that the current system could possibly exist if people really are putting in way more money in tuition and opportunity costs than the JD is worth; not for this long, something would give.

People keep returning to the Las Vegas casinos even though they always lose. Ditto for state lotteries.

Read about the favorite-longshot bias: http://favourite-longshot-bias.behaviouralfinance.net/ (http://favourite-longshot-bias.behaviouralfinance.net/)
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: inertia on April 13, 2007, 12:53:52 AM
Wow, a very interesting and enlightening thread!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: grassroute on April 30, 2007, 08:02:42 PM
Yes. Many lawyers make less than a good construction worker, a firefighter, or a garbage collector for that matter. The difference between the two, however, is that the latter don't have student loans to pay back.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Runner-up on May 01, 2007, 02:05:23 AM
A judge visiting my school and speaking to the student body, advised us not to go into law, if we wanted to get rich. Up until that point, everyone had been laughing at his jokes. When he made that statement, the whole room was stone silent.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: themanwithnoname on May 01, 2007, 09:20:36 AM
I think this makes sense though. At least at the top schools, people will have the credentials to go into a field like finance - and get REALLY rich. So, if your goal in life is to just make as much money as possible, you are in the wrong field.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: squarre on May 01, 2007, 11:02:29 AM
A judge visiting my school and speaking to the student body, advised us not to go into law, if we wanted to get rich. Up until that point, everyone had been laughing at his jokes. When he made that statement, the whole room was stone silent.
Obviously I didn't hear the talk, but I have heard many say you won't get rich practicing law.  When most people say this they don't mean you won't make very good money and won't live extremely comfortably.  There are just very few lawyers who get into the mid to high six figures and still fewer that get to the seven figure range.  Successful entrepreneur, high level finance executives, and various other have many more making the very high end salary.   

It definitely doesn't mean that most lawyers will go through life living hand to mouth and struggling to make a living.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: utu on May 01, 2007, 11:13:56 AM

I think this makes sense though. At least at the top schools, people will have the credentials to go into a field like finance - and get REALLY rich. So, if your goal in life is to just make as much money as possible, you are in the wrong field.


Obviously!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: d a n a on May 01, 2007, 07:03:57 PM

I think this makes sense though. At least at the top schools, people will have the credentials to go into a field like finance - and get REALLY rich. So, if your goal in life is to just make as much money as possible, you are in the wrong field.


Obviously!


;)
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: amygdala on May 03, 2007, 07:12:29 PM


I think this makes sense though. At least at the top schools, people will have the credentials to go into a field like finance - and get REALLY rich. So, if your goal in life is to just make as much money as possible, you are in the wrong field.


Exactly, it's not only money that people who go to law school are after; it's also about being considered a "learned," "respectable" person -- as attorneys are perceived to be.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: k k on May 03, 2007, 09:32:15 PM

Exactly, it's not only money that people who go to law school are after; it's also about being considered a "learned," "respectable" person -- as attorneys are perceived to be.


Images of legal practice are too often coloured by popular presentations of the profession in movies and by sensational press coverage of unusual court proceedings. However, you are better off clearing away the glamour and take a close look at the daily life of practicing attorneys.

People should not be willfully blind to the central fact of law school: it is a trade school, and the trade itself can be esoteric, dull and of questionable utility. Study of law is like doing a very large Sunday crossword for 3 years straight. What you do in law school is read hundreds and hundreds of cases learning that judges write remarkably poorly. In most cases, judges need give little more than a yes or no answer, but they devote thousands of words in each instance trying to sound reasonable and consistent. From all their verbiage, you are supposed to glean a pattern and pretend it constitutes a set of legal rules. What law professors do is reveal the twisted reasoning employed by all judges.

One "appeal" of this "mode of pedagogy" is that students are invited to feel superior to the nation's jurists, who are made to seem at best ignorant buffoons and at worst heartless manipulators of doctrine. Yet, surprisingly law students learn a lot about the premises and methodology of the law by reading and discussing cases. Unfortunately, this knowledge is not the kind of truth that sets you free, but rather it is the kind that makes you cynical.

On the other hand, practicing law in a corporate setting is boring and requires excessively long hours. If people knew what work is like in big city firms, they would never do it. It is basically a "sweatshop," and all you do is get a copy of an old document and you fill in the blanks -- there's a lack of intellectual stimulation to the extent that you just don't enjoy it. Nonetheless, lawyers pursue this more lucrative career track because of the huge debt that many young people take on while attending law school. Wall Street lawyers make the most money, but they appear to get the least satisfaction out of their jobs. They work extremely long days and many weekends, billing clients for 2,000 to 2,500 hours of work a year, and find they are given little responsibility initially. On the other hand, young prosecutors, law clerks, and public-interest lawyers seem to take real pride in what they are doing and get great satisfaction from their jobs. The problem, of course, with these latter positions is that the attorney will be earning a fraction of what his counterpart may be making in the less satisfying, more stressful, and less stimulating alternative.

While there may be a significant number of law school graduates flourishing in other careers, the ugly truth is that almost everyone who goes to law school becomes a lawyer; because law school teaches you a particular trade, you're more likely to practice it. Although in some cases law school may help you write about the law and some aspects of policy, it does not mean that you can do anything with a law degree; rather, it means that some people can find gainful employment as writers despite the careful attention of a battery of professionals bent on ruining your prose (Developing writing skills as a prerequisite to become an attoney unfortunately means that law school will teach you an essentially unreadable kind of prose). If you want to do something else you should do something else.

Lawyers do not make that much money. The funny thing is that lawyers don't make much compared to investment bankers, for example. And the salaries of associates carry fringe benefits like constant pressure and slim chances of becoming a partner in the firm. The net result may be not having enough time to spend the money you make and being miserable in the process. Consider also that it's very hard to land such a high paying job at a time when there are unemployed and underemployed lawyers all over the place, and plenty are making perfectly ordinary salaries.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: themanwithnoname on May 04, 2007, 09:45:33 AM
k k, why are you in law school?
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: bobbykurva on May 04, 2007, 04:16:54 PM
Sounds like KK is on the road to become one of those "ignorant buffoons and at worst heartless manipulators of doctrine." This damn post is "devote of thousands of words in each instance trying to sound reasonable and consistent... [f]rom all th[is] verbiage."
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: TheNewGuy on May 04, 2007, 09:08:22 PM
A judge visiting my school and speaking to the student body, advised us not to go into law, if we wanted to get rich. Up until that point, everyone had been laughing at his jokes. When he made that statement, the whole room was stone silent.

lucky me, my administrators already gave us that speech on Admitted Students Day --- I'm glad I'm over the little power trip myself.

When it boils down to it, $$ / power was not at all how I had envisioned a great career in the first place...(was was one of those socially conscientious types). Then I stumbled upon law when I was really struggling to make a buck out of college, and I abruptly (in sort of an Orwellian way) became intruiged by that unrealistic perception of lawyering. Now that that's worn off, I've realized to a certain degree what I have gotten myself into: learning a trade I have an inclination towards. (That inclination is consistent with with I was looking for in the first place!)

This is where I can identify with KK's post, while generally feeling pretty positive about the whole ordeal.

Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: loanee on May 09, 2007, 07:38:37 PM

Sounds like KK is on the road to become one of those "ignorant buffoons and at worst heartless manipulators of doctrine." This d**mn post is "devote of thousands of words in each instance trying to sound reasonable and consistent... [f]rom all th[is] verbiage."


Assuming, of course,  k k *is* in law school.
Title: A Capitol Effort for Law Student Loan Reform
Post by: polycephalous on May 10, 2007, 02:23:40 AM
"If you told me three years ago that I would be working at a commercial law firm, I never would have believed it," confides "Karen," a second-year associate at a large New York firm. Karen, who requested anonymity for this article, is at the pinnacle of the legal profession: A graduate of one of the country's top law schools, she earns six figures representing corporate clients on challenging legal matters. But Karen's job represents a compromise of the dreams that led her to become a lawyer. "I entered law school with the intention of taking a public interest position in the field of human rights," she says. What changed her mind was the prospect of repaying $145,000 in student loans and $20,000 in credit card debt she accumulated during three years of law school. "I felt I had no other choice than to look for a job in the private sector," she says. "I have friends with this kind of debt who chose not to go to law firms," Karen adds. "But they either have someone providing financial support or a very different psychological relationship to this debt. Personally, I find it nerve wracking."

Karen's story is one of 400 accounts the ABA Law Student Division received when it solicited on its web site in early April "personal experiences or hardships relating to ... law school debt." On April 27 and 28, a delegation of law student officers took those stories to Washington, D.C., and visited the offices of 32 members of Congress. Their mission: to drive home the message that the high cost of law school loans is preventing a new generation of lawyers from entering public interest law. As one student account noted, "Not everyone in law school wants to make a lot of money. Some people see law as a means to getting people to listen, changing our great nation's public policy, and carving out a life we can look back on with pride." But at what personal cost, many are wondering. Take, for example, the typical legal aid lawyer, who earns a salary of $36,000, or $27,000 after taxes. If he has $100,000 in outstanding loans on a 10-year repayment plan, he will pay out $1,065 each month on student loans, leaving just $1,185 for all other expenses, notes Philip Schrag, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and an expert in student debt issues. Schrag, along with ABA past president Robert Hirshon, current president Michael Greco, Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.), and former Law Student Division chair Chris Jeter, spoke at a program on student debt and loan forgiveness at Georgetown on April 26. The event, a kickoff to the ABA's related lobbying activities on Capitol Hill, was sponsored by the ABA Law Student Division, Young Lawyers Division, and Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar.

At the heart of the problem is the rising cost of tuition, which has "risen much more dramatically than the cost of living," says Schrag, author of "Repay As You Earn: The Flawed Government Program to Help Students Have Public Service Careers." From 1992 to 2002, as the cost of living rose 28%, tuition rose 100% for in-state residents at public schools, 134% for out-of-state residents at public schools, and 76% at private schools. Law students currently graduate with an average debt load of $66,810 from public schools and $97,763 from private schools, according to Schrag. That debt is manageable on the median law firm starting salary of $90,000, but it becomes overwhelming for government and nonprofit lawyers, who draw median salaries of $42,000 and $36,000, respectively, he adds.

What are the alternatives? More than 80 law schools and eight states have started loan repayment assistance programs (LRAPs) to forgive the loans of graduates entering public interest or public service work. These programs lower interest rates on loans, defer loan payments, or forgive a percentage of loans for every year a lawyer works in a public-interest-related legal job. Their drawback, Schrag says, is that they have strict income limits: Lawyers can lose eligibility for a program after receiving a couple of salary raises. And many schools do not yet have these programs or have only a limited amount of funds to dispense. For broader relief, the ABA has been lobbying for changes in two federal loan programs: raising the annual limit on Stafford unsubsidized loans from $10,000 to $30,000 and improving the usability of the Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR) option of the William D. Ford Federal Direct Lending Program, which currently forgives federal student loans after 25 years of public service.

The Stafford program allows graduate and professional students to borrow $8,500 in subsidized loans and $10,000 in unsubsidized loans annually — an amount that Congress has not increased since 1992. Because $18,500 is insufficient to cover tuition at all but a few law schools, law students are forced to make up the difference by taking out loans from private lenders, which charge exorbitant interest rates. What makes the situation particularly unfair to proponents of law student loan reform is that the Department of Education raised the annual Stafford unsubsidized loan limit for medical and other health care students to $30,000 in 1999. The ABA argues that all graduate and professional students should receive the same treatment.

The ABA also is urging that student loans be forgiven after 15 years of public service and that the ICR program's marriage penalty be eliminated. Currently, the program limits annual loan payments to 20% of a lawyer's income, but married lawyers must pay 20% of their joint income. Whatever is unpaid each year is added to the principal. "You may actually have to pay more over time," Schrag cautions. The most significant drawback to the ICR program in its current state is its 25-year length. "Lawyers balk at paying off their student loans at the same time they are paying for their children's college education," Schrag says. The ABA House of Delegates made lobbying for these changes in the law a priority item in 2003. Two years earlier, then-ABA president Hirshon established a Commission on Loan Repayment and Forgiveness. It produced a report in 2003 titled "Lifting the Burden: Law Student Debt As a Barrier to Public Service," which included 19 recommendations to the ABA, states, and law schools.

http://www.abanet.org/lsd/studentlawyer/oct05/capitoleffort.html
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: kilroy55 on May 10, 2007, 09:49:20 AM
This is an interesting area.  One of my professors that I worked for does research into trying to improve the legal community, and more public service.  Law school debt is one of the areas she focuses on.  But are lawyers "poor"?  Depends upon your definition of poor.  The vast, vast majority are not.  Consider the median United States income was 46,326 for 2005.  Take this same number and compare to the average income for a lawyer as cited by the Department of Labor -- 110,520.  Lawyers are far above the national average.  Consider that most law schools in the nation graduate attorneys working for 50K or more a year, as first year graduates.  The salary looks even better if you view salary.com stats as having lawyers make 153,923.  Lawyers are not poor, but perhaps if you mistakenly thought you were going to make six figures at the tender age of 25 these salary numbers reflect attorneys being "poor."
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Burning Sands on May 10, 2007, 04:05:58 PM
In debt, young lawyers struggle to make it
Young prosecutors and assistant public defenders are struggling to pay for even the bare necessities.

BY SUSANNAH A. NESMITH
snesmith@MiamiHerald.com

For Allison Haney, it's a good thing Publix takes credit cards. By the end of the month, she often doesn't have enough money left from her salary as a prosecutor to buy food.

Ayana Harris turns to Mom and Dad for help with the basics every month, and knows her parents will have to chip in even more when the brakes in her car go, or the dog needs to go to the vet. As an assistant public defender, she's also strapped for cash each month.

Haney and Harris are among dozens of young South Florida lawyers who have decided to sacrifice the comforts a law degree could offer in order to practice criminal law for the government. They are sharp, dedicated and idealistic, and their dreams are sinking them deeper and deeper into debt each month.

''I'm 27 years old, I shouldn't be asking my parents for money,'' Haney said. ``It's sad. I don't want them to give me money, but sometimes I do go to their house to eat.''

Haney is a top ''pit prosecutor'' in Circuit Judge Larry Schwartz's courtroom, meaning that with a little more than three years' experience, she's already trying rapists, robbers and even the occasional murderer.

She earns $50,000 a year to do it.

''It's financially irresponsible for me to remain here,'' Haney said. ``But it's socially responsible. I love my job. There's nothing else I'd rather do.''

She has about $130,000 in debt, mostly school loans she took out to get her law degree.

GROWING GAP

The issue of underpaid prosecutors and public defenders is getting attention around the country as the difference grows between their salaries and what they could make in the private sector and even in other government positions.

District and state attorneys and their counterparts, the public defenders, report losing staff attorneys at alarming rates, and recruiting for such low-paying jobs is increasingly difficult.

In Tallahassee, Rep. Ari Porth, D-Coral Springs, is sponsoring a bill that would at least help assistant public defenders and prosecutors pay their school loans, but he said it's not getting much support in a tight budget year.

Porth has been a Broward prosecutor for 12 years and says he's been able to stay in the office that long only because he doesn't have any school loans.

SCHOOL LOANS

Help with her loans is exactly the kind of thing that could keep Harris in her job as an assistant public defender, defending the indigent people that Haney prosecutes.

Harris' debts -- about $140,000 -- are crushing when compared to her $56,000 salary.

She owed only $120,000 when she started working for the public defender's office almost six years ago, but the interest has added up as she's deferred her school loans. And she still owes taxes from 2001 and 2002.

Her parents regularly pitch in to keep her afloat.

'I don't think there are many people who go to school for seven years to live in their parents' pockets,'' Harris said over lunch in the courthouse cafeteria. ``It makes me feel like I'm not a complete adult.''

She's not even trying to live well at this point. She's basically given up vacations -- her parents pay for her tickets home and she doesn't travel anymore, even though she studied abroad and used to love to wander.

''I promised I'd take my mother to Africa for her 60th birthday. Now it's coming up, but I don't see how I'll do it,'' she said sadly.

Harris' father, Robert Harris, is happy to help his daughter, but he's not sure how long he can subsidize her.

''As a father, you want to be there for them but at some point you think you cut those apron strings and they'll be able to support themselves,'' he said.

``I don't mind doing it, it's just sort of unfair.''

And he worries about those looming loans and what they're doing to his daughter's credit.

''You mortgage your life away because you wanted to educate yourself,'' he said. ``I see someone like Ayana who's willing to work in a job that probably a lot of people don't like to do. I think she should be fairly compensated.''

RETENTION CHALLENGE

The low salaries mean both offices are struggling to keep attorneys like Haney and Harris.

Consider the Miami-Dade state attorney's office. It has a staff of 291 attorneys and lost 126 of them in 2005 and 2006. The public defender's office, with a staff of 192 attorneys, lost 63 during the same two-year period.

Harris and Haney don't want to be part of those statistics, but they're realistic.

'The only thing that is keeping me here is my parents' ability to supplement my income,'' Harris said. 'Initially, they thought `how noble' to defend people who can't afford a lawyer, but quite frankly, both of them are a little bit over it now.''

''I can't do this much longer,'' Haney said. ``I keep meaning to put my résumé out, but the part of me that wants to stay here hasn't gotten around to it yet. . . . It's an amazing feeling when you get a guilty [verdict] in trial for somebody who is truly a danger to the community. I'll miss that.''
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: torturedbylawschool on May 10, 2007, 07:31:42 PM
I just thought I'd mention that I know a guy that went to a 4th tier in Boston, is $100,000 in debt from law school, has his own practice, but has to wait tables FT at night just to make ends meat. He has 2 kids he never sees.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: blueb73 on May 10, 2007, 08:30:25 PM
tag



now someone post something so it will pop up tomorrow  :)
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Burning Sands on May 11, 2007, 07:30:21 AM
I just thought I'd mention that I know a guy that went to a 4th tier in Boston, is $100,000 in debt from law school, has his own practice, but has to wait tables FT at night just to make ends meat. He has 2 kids he never sees.

Well that just sucks.   :P
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: c a b r i o l e t on May 13, 2007, 08:24:37 PM

[...] Wall Street lawyers make the most money, but they appear to get the least satisfaction out of their jobs. They work extremely long days and many weekends, billing clients for 2,000 to 2,500 hours of work a year, and find they are given little responsibility initially. [...]


Excuse my ignorance, but why would the author consider 2000 hours a year too much? To bill 2000 hours, you need to bill only 40 hrs per week for 50 weeks. If you take an hour for lunch, that's 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., 5 days per week. No sweat. 
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: oopslaw on May 13, 2007, 09:32:37 PM

Excuse my ignorance, but why would the author consider 2000 hours a year too much? To bill 2000 hours, you need to bill only 40 hrs per week for 50 weeks. If you take an hour for lunch, that's 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., 5 days per week. No sweat. 


cabriolet, there is a big difference -- a painfully big difference -- between the hours that you bill and the hours that you spend at work. If you're honest, you bill only the time that you spend working directly on matters for clients. Obviously, you cannot bill the time that you spend on vacation, or in bed with the flu, or at home waiting for the plumber. But you will also not be able to bill for much of what you will do at the office or during the workday -- going to lunch, chatting with your co-workers about the latest office romance, visiting your favorite websites, going down the hall to get a cup of coffee, reading your mail, going to the bathroom, attending the weekly meeting of your practice group, filling out your time sheet, talking with your spouse on the phone, sending e-mail to friends, preparing a "pitch" for a prospective client, getting your hair cut, attending a funeral, photocopying your tax returns, interviewing a recruit, playing Solitaire on your computer, doing pro bono work, reading advance sheets, taking a summer associate to a baseball game, attending CLE seminars, writing a letter about a mistake in your credit card bill, going to the dentist, dropping off your dry cleaning, daydreaming, and so on.

Because none of this is billable -- and because the average lawyer does a lot of this every day -- you end up billing only about 2 hours for every 3 hours that you spend at "work." Thus, to bill 2000 hours per year, you will have to spend about 60 hours per week at the office, and take no more than 2 weeks of vacation/sick time/personal leave. If it takes you, say, 45 minutes to get to work, and another 45 minutes to get home, billing 2000 hours per year will mean leaving home at 7:45 a.m., working at the office from 8:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m., and then arriving home at 7:15 p.m. -- and doing this 6 days per week, every week. That makes for long days, and for long weeks. And you will have to work these hours not just for a month or two, but year after year after year. That makes for a long life.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Runner-up on May 14, 2007, 06:07:00 PM
There are quite a few horror stories about law firms that will not credit some important work toward billable hours. For example, one firm in this metropolitan area will not consider going to court billable hours. Now granted, litigating a case is not everything when it comes to how a lawyer does his job, but if that is not counted, then a lot of other aspects of your work shouldn't be, either.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: bestow on May 19, 2007, 08:10:47 AM

Freud himself who was to declare to Fliess in a letter dated 16 January 1898, that money did not form the object of an infantile wish which is why, as the well-known saying puts it, money proves incapable of "making one happy" as an adult. [...]


I guess you've read about the Freud-Fleiss relations ... I was a psychology major in college for a time ... this was until I wrote a paper with the hypothesis that Freud was gay... The paper was not an attack on Freud or gays, it was just making some salient points about motivations ... The instructor in the class made a point of not agreeing with me, but liked the paper and gave me an A ... Well, the paper was passed around the faculty in the Psych dept and I was eventually called into the Dean's office ... he told me that if I "...continued upon this course, I will refuse to allow you to graduate with a degree in this field." At that point I went back to majoring in history...

Freud is such a polarizing subject in the field, but I never thought that a simple paper would lead to a threat to end my academic path ...
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Everything But The Girl on May 24, 2007, 03:10:42 AM

[...] you end up billing only about 2 hours for every 3 hours that you spend at "work." [...]


So basically no matter how little time you may spend doing these other things, your law firm partners will use the 3:2 formula to figure the approximate number of hours you can bill?!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: LegalMatters on May 24, 2007, 08:35:37 AM
Based on my deep insider knowledge (my boyfriend works for a law firm with a 2,000-hour-a-year billing requirement), I may be able to demystify this from the layman's perspective.

On billable hours, work is measured in increments and there's no standard increment that all firms use. One firm may bill in 15-minute increments, another in 10-minute increments, and where my boyfriend is employed, six-minute increments. It's not even done algebraically, I'm told. For each file, he keeps a running tally of what activity he did in relation to the file, and how long it took him on a piece of scratch paper and then enters it into a program that helps generate bills.

Again, I'm not a 1L yet, but I think it's a matter of ethical behavior not to cheat on the numbers. For example, based on a five-minute increment system, if I start working on a brief at 1 p.m., take a five-minute coffee break around 1:30 p.m., then return and continue working on the brief until 2 p.m., I'm billing 55 minutes. You don't round up to the nearest hour. Or, if I start writing the brief at 1 p.m, take a phone call to negotiate with the other side on a different case for 15 minutes, then return to the brief I'm working on until 2 p.m., I'm billing 45 minutes for the first file and 15 minutes for the second file.

Only certain activities can be billed for. My guess would be that that's part of why lawyers work long days. You can be in the office for 10 hours but may only come up with six billables for that time.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: solicitor on May 26, 2007, 02:51:09 AM

[...] Wall Street lawyers make the most money, but they appear to get the least satisfaction out of their jobs. They work extremely long days and many weekends, billing clients for 2,000 to 2,500 hours of work a year, and find they are given little responsibility initially. [...]


Excuse my ignorance, but why would the author consider 2000 hours a year too much? To bill 2000 hours, you need to bill only 40 hrs per week for 50 weeks. If you take an hour for lunch, that's 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., 5 days per week. No sweat. 


cambrioleur, that's exactly what I said when I heard about the $2,000 billable hrs! :)
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Lynn Cox on May 26, 2007, 03:27:21 AM

Freud himself who was to declare to Fliess in a letter dated 16 January 1898, that money did not form the object of an infantile wish which is why, as the well-known saying puts it, money proves incapable of "making one happy" as an adult. Yet, it can nevertheless give the impression of doing so, to the extent that it is capable as we know from Freudian metapsychology of functioning as the unconscious substitute and equivalent for any "object" whatsoever that is invested by the libido of the subject, be this oral, phallic or, especially, anal. Indeed, it is because infants view their faeces as the first tangible proof of their capacity to produce something meaningful, on both a material level and a "relational" one, that money stands in a relation of symbolic equivalence, for the unconscious of every subject, with the notions of faeces, gift, penis, and baby.

On a material level, faeces represent for children their first possessions of value. Indeed, if children tend at first, roughly between the ages of 2 and 3, to take an auto-erotic pleasure in defecating (the first phase of the anal stage), they subsequently discover, around the age of 3 or 4, that they can obtain a more intense excitation by holding back their stool (the second phase of the anal stage). This is the source of the pleasure adults take in holding onto money, valuable objects or, yet again, time (as shown by the character-traits of avarice and parsimony, as well as the pleasure of hoarding or saving), in accordance with the equation of money and excrement. As regards the relational point of view, it is not long before the child comes up against a parental injunction usually expressed by the mother to "do" when and where it is necessary. The child thus finds himself or herself faced with an alternative: either to obey and defecate in the pot upon which he or she is placed, and thereby secure maternal satisfaction, along with rewards and caresses; or to disobey, in a show of defiance directed at the beloved mother, by "doing" anytime and anywhere (in bed, for example) or by refusing to perform when asked to, and thereby annoy, or even anger, his or her mother.

The first option consists in the child's presenting his or her first real gift to the mother namely, the gift of his or her stools, capable of extracting cries of joy or surprise from the latter and in thereby taking up an attitude of object love. The second option amounts to the child's preferring a narcissistic position -- refusal, stubbornness, obstinacy, opposition, etc. -- and his or her obtaining an aggressive satisfaction (the anal-sadistic aspect of which Freud speaks). This would form the source of the pleasure that adults can take in refusing demands made by other people -- such as demands for a pay rise made by employees in a firm, with such a refusal being all the more significant, on the symbolic level, when the rise in question is almost negligible in strictly financial terms. In the most extreme case, according to the psycho-analytical argument that is often put forward, an overly active or precocious repression of the child's psychosexual development during the anal stage -- especially at the moment of toilet training -- can lead to the development, in later life, of a veritable obsessional (or, as it was sometimes called, anal) neurosis. Since the pathbreaking work of Oskar Pfister on the psychical structure of classical capitalism and the financial mind (Borneman, 1978), an entire current of thought (Reich, Fromm, etc.) has endeavoured to locate within the capitalist system the indices of a collective obsessional neurotic syndrome.

[...]


The anal phase corresponds to the following period when an infant is 1 and a half to 3 and a half years old. During this period, an infant becomes more independent. It is the period when parents are the authority determining when the infants should defecated as they try to discipline their infants. Having found a new erotogenic zone, the anus, which gives a pleasurable sensation when turds are let go, the child often disobeys and holds back the faeces when put on the pot. The accumulation produces a violent muscular attraction with as much pain as pleasure and this habit is usually found in a child. The distinction into the masculine and the feminine is not yet developed but rather as the active and the passive. The object of satisfaction here is not identical for the active and the passive unlike the case of oral phase. The active wants to have a control of its own and to be the authority whereas the passive has to submit to the authority. The anal phase can manifest itself later in adults in authoritarian and rebellious personality.

Also in this period, the infants will be preoccupied with anus and faeces. Children often treat faeces as a gift and they also like to play with them. Being told by their parents not to, the children then play with something similar like mud or clay. Adults who regress to the anal phase are sometimes found to play with their faeces in confined cells or hospital. Money is also a symbolic substitute of faeces, deriving from being a substitution of gold, a substitution of faeces. So playing with money in the adults is an acceptable substitution for the unconscious desire to play with faeces.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: interestoninterest on May 26, 2007, 08:13:15 PM

[...] they subsequently discover, around the age of 3 or 4, that they can obtain a more intense excitation by holding back their stool (the second phase of the anal stage). [...]


Quote

[...] Having found a new erotogenic zone, the anus, which gives a pleasurable sensation when turds are let go, the child often disobeys and holds back the faeces when put on the pot. [...]


So basically are you guys saying that when you keep turds in your rectum for longer they're supposed to be there you're in actuality using them to musturbate your anus? Or is that only when the turds are let go that the anus really gets stimulated for you to have pleasure? 
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: relationship on May 26, 2007, 09:11:31 PM
interestoninterest, I guess both.

Many people will actually not go to the bathroom for days in a raw (they are constipated, after all, what's wrong with that) Then, all of a sudden, they let go some abnormally large sized feces. We're talking HUGE, here! (say, 3 inches in diameter and 8 inches in length).
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: my stepson my lover on May 31, 2007, 02:40:27 AM
OMG the a-hole appears to be a really really big hole!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: my stepson my lover on May 31, 2007, 02:42:00 AM
OMG the a s s h o l e appears to be a really really big hole!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: daisygirl on June 20, 2007, 01:30:12 AM

[...] you end up billing only about 2 hours for every 3 hours that you spend at "work." [...]


So basically no matter how little time you may spend doing these other things, your law firm partners will use the 3:2 formula to figure the approximate number of hours you can bill?!


LOL ;)
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: coquita on June 20, 2007, 01:23:41 PM
.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Sparkz1920 on June 20, 2007, 05:38:21 PM
my brother in law is a lawyer at a big tax firm that is held to those 2,000 billable hours. I don't know how it works at his firm. All I know is that he gets to the office at 7-8am leaves around 6-7 and works on Saturdays. I know I will only be making 65,000-75,000 starting out as a prosecutor, but at least I won't have to worry constantly about being fired for not getting enough hours.

That salary is fine for me getting out. I dont wanna sell my soul to make over 100K. I dont anticipate having near 100K in debt, so i know my payments wont be over 1,000 a month. I have no kids and dont mind having something meager to drive yet nice, and a nice furnished apartment. Im not tyhe flashy type, so i dont need all that extra stuff if i cnt afford or dont need it
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Sparkz1920 on June 20, 2007, 05:42:03 PM
I just thought I'd mention that I know a guy that went to a 4th tier in Boston, is $100,000 in debt from law school, has his own practice, but has to wait tables FT at night just to make ends meat. He has 2 kids he never sees.


Why choose to go to a high price T4 school? If im gonna pay the same price for law school as i would at a T1, either im going to try to go to the T1, or im going to go to a much cheaper T4
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: coquita on June 20, 2007, 11:43:53 PM
.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Sparkz1920 on June 21, 2007, 03:15:35 AM
my brother in law is a lawyer at a big tax firm that is held to those 2,000 billable hours. I don't know how it works at his firm. All I know is that he gets to the office at 7-8am leaves around 6-7 and works on Saturdays. I know I will only be making 65,000-75,000 starting out as a prosecutor, but at least I won't have to worry constantly about being fired for not getting enough hours.

That salary is fine for me getting out. I dont wanna sell my soul to make over 100K. I dont anticipate having near 100K in debt, so i know my payments wont be over 1,000 a month. I have no kids and dont mind having something meager to drive yet nice, and a nice furnished apartment. Im not tyhe flashy type, so i dont need all that extra stuff if i cnt afford or dont need it

That's exactly how I feel...but I am feeling pressure by my family and my fiance to think about "selling out" for a couple years if I maintain a high GPA. But the only reason I want to be a lawyer is to practice in criminal law or something similar such as nonprofit work.... so they will have to accept that I will be working for the government and not a firm.


Thats what i want to go into also. Criminal Law. So i may not be making so much getting out of law school, although there are ways to make money working in criminal law because of course, there are always going to be criminals
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: kind law on June 23, 2007, 06:01:59 AM

[...] I know I will only be making 65,000-75,000 starting out as a prosecutor, [...]


actually it's 40,000-45,000
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: kaligula on July 13, 2007, 03:11:21 AM
"I'm kind of stuck," said a 27-year-old lawyer from Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law who moved to Chicago after she graduated last year. She did not want to reveal her identity out of a concern that doing so would hinder her job search. Currently working for an in-house department at a large insurance company in Chicago, she graduated in the top third of her class, was a member of law review and participated in the school's moot court competition. She has $70,000 in student loan debt and makes about $50,000 annually. She sent out more than 100 résumés and letters before and after she graduated, she said. "I could get in the door; I just couldn't land the job." She said that many of her friends from law school are working on a contract basis for law firms. A lot of people are making $30,000. She is looking for another job and is considering non-lawyer positions. "I'm not going anywhere," she said.

While the challenges of landing that first job as a lawyer may not be any more difficult for law graduates than for graduates in other fields, the attention paid to the top lawyer jobs by the media, the law firms and the schools themselves can build false hopes about job prospects. I absolutely think their expectations are inflated," said James Leipold, executive director of NALP. Part of the problem lies in the interpretation of the numbers, Leipold explained. As of August 2006, the most recent data available from NALP, the median salary for first-year associates at law firms with 501 attorneys or more was $135,000. Since then, many big law firms have raised their starting pay to $160,000. For firms with two to 25 attorneys, the median salary was $67,000, according to NALP's latest information. But job hunters should view those figures with caution, Leipold said. First, the majority of law school graduates obtain jobs at firms with 10 attorneys or fewer. In addition, location makes a big difference in salaries. Most law school graduates across the country who take jobs in private practice can expect to make between $40,000 and $45,000 their first year, Leipold said.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: mle on July 13, 2007, 03:46:06 AM
Wow, scary, kaligula!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: fire on July 20, 2007, 12:02:58 AM

[...] I was a psychology major in college for a time ... this was until I wrote a paper with the hypothesis that Freud was gay ... The paper was not an attack on Freud or gays, it was just making some salient points about motivations ... The instructor in the class made a point of not agreeing with me, but liked the paper and gave me an A ... Well, the paper was passed around the faculty in the Psych dept and I was eventually called into the Dean's office ... he told me that if I "...continued upon this course, I will refuse to allow you to graduate with a degree in this field." At that point I went back to majoring in history...

Freud is such a polarizing subject in the field, but I never thought that a simple paper would lead to a threat to end my academic path ...


LOL ;)
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: in house on July 30, 2007, 01:05:43 PM

Bye-Bye, Mein Lieber Herr.
Farewell, mein Lieber Herr.
It was a fine affair,
But now it's over.
And though I used to care,
I need the open air.


I guess this is the whorified version of Whitney Houston's I Will Always Love You:

If I should stay,
I would only be in your way.
So I'll go, but I know
I'll think of you ev'ry step of the way.

And I will always love you.
I will always love you.
You, my darling you. Hmm.

Bittersweet memories
that is all I'm taking with me.
So, goodbye. Please, don't cry.
We both know I'm not what you, you need.

And I will always love you.
I will always love you.

(Instrumental solo)

I hope life treats you kind
And I hope you have all you've dreamed of.
And I wish to you, joy and happiness.
But above all this, I wish you love.

And I will always love you.
I will always love you.
I will always love you.
I will always love you.
I will always love you.
I, I will always love you.

You, darling, I love you.
Ooh, I'll always, I'll always love you.


Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: bermuda on July 30, 2007, 06:30:41 PM

Wow, scary, kaligula!


Indeed!!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: recriminate on August 19, 2007, 12:14:16 AM

Bye-Bye, Mein Lieber Herr.
Farewell, mein Lieber Herr.
It was a fine affair,
But now it's over.
And though I used to care,
I need the open air.


I guess this is the whorified version of Whitney Houston's I Will Always Love You:


LOL in house! ;)
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: abjure on August 19, 2007, 05:17:47 AM
.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: apocryphal on August 19, 2007, 05:02:47 PM
HAHAHA ;)
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: largess on August 24, 2007, 04:44:23 AM

Bye-Bye, Mein Lieber Herr.
Farewell, mein Lieber Herr.
It was a fine affair,
But now it's over.
And though I used to care,
I need the open air.


I guess this is the whorified version of Whitney Houston's I Will Always Love You:


LOL in house! ;)


In house is very funny, indeed!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: herr en on February 24, 2008, 11:57:34 AM

First, thanks for the flame. Second, I live in Northern California where my city pays 5,800-6,100 for a level I attorney in the criminal division. Kind law- I know how much they pay DA's in D.C., that's why I moved... ::)


D.C. is full of low-paid go't attys indeed!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: ismile on April 05, 2008, 12:33:49 PM

Bye-Bye, Mein Lieber Herr.
Farewell, mein Lieber Herr.
It was a fine affair,
But now it's over.
And though I used to care,
I need the open air.


It's from Cabaret's opening piece, isn't it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX-24Zm0bjk&feature=related
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: doubtie on July 08, 2008, 05:17:29 AM
You bet!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Jerrry on July 08, 2008, 12:45:31 PM
Just because they all wear suits does not mean they are rich, I have not seen a really poor one myself but i guess my lecturers who also work as solicitors for those little companies are not rich, their wages is just enough to get by. Having said that, i know alot of well-to-do lawyers.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: s t u f f on August 08, 2008, 01:26:51 AM

Bye-Bye, Mein Lieber Herr.
Farewell, mein Lieber Herr.
It was a fine affair,
But now it's over.
And though I used to care,
I need the open air.


It's from Cabaret's opening piece, isn't it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX-24Zm0bjk&feature=related


The Money song is even more famous!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkRIbUT6u7Q

Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: pregap on August 11, 2008, 10:58:30 AM
 boat docked in a tiny Mexican village. An American tourist complimented the Mexican fisherman on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took him to catch them.

"Not very long," answered the Mexican.

"But then, why didn't you stay out longer and catch more?" asked the American.
The Mexican explained that his small catch was sufficient to meet his needs and those of his family.

The American asked, "But what do you do with the rest of your time?"

"I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, and take a siesta with my wife. In the evenings, I go into the village to see my friends, have a few drinks, play the guitar, and sing a few songs. I have a full life."

The American interrupted, "I have an MBA from Harvard and I can help you! You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat."

"And after that?" asked the Mexican.

"With the extra money the larger boat will bring, you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers. Instead of selling your fish to a middle man, you can then negotiate directly with the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant. You can then leave this little village and move to Mexico City, Los Angeles, or even New York City! From there you can direct your huge new enterprise."

"How long would that take?" asked the Mexican.

"Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years," replied the American.

"And after that?"

"Afterwards? Well my friend, that's when it gets really interesting," answered the American, laughing. "When your business gets really big, you can start buying and selling stocks and make millions!"

"Millions? Really? And after that?" asked the Mexican.

"After that you'll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, play with your children, catch a few fish, take a siesta with your wife and spend your evenings drinking and enjoying your friends."
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Savvy? on October 09, 2008, 11:10:45 AM

Bye-Bye, Mein Lieber Herr.
Farewell, mein Lieber Herr.
It was a fine affair,
But now it's over.
And though I used to care,
I need the open air.


It's from Cabaret's opening piece, isn't it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX-24Zm0bjk&feature=related


The Money song is even more famous!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkRIbUT6u7Q


A common saying is that "money is the root of evil." My people-experience has proven otherwise. Money can't cripple confidence, can't snuff creativity, and can't kill love near as efficiently or quickly as reticence can. If such a money v. reticence race were run, I would place every spare nickel on that "dark horse" and be confident of winning. What's not said destroys more people than money does, I've found.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: mqt on October 09, 2008, 11:42:33 AM


A common saying is that "money is the root of evil."

That reminded me of this almost-forgotten joke:

(http://media.funlol.com/content/img/0435.jpg)
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: t14troll on October 09, 2008, 12:46:37 PM
Just because they all wear suits does not mean they are rich, I have not seen a really poor one myself but i guess my lecturers who also work as solicitors for those little companies are not rich, their wages is just enough to get by. Having said that, i know alot of well-to-do lawyers.

lol @ ur TTT
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: manypulate on October 09, 2008, 06:54:06 PM

Bye-Bye, Mein Lieber Herr.
Farewell, mein Lieber Herr.
It was a fine affair,
But now it's over.
And though I used to care,
I need the open air.


It's from Cabaret's opening piece, isn't it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX-24Zm0bjk&feature=related


The Money song is even more famous!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkRIbUT6u7Q


A common saying is that "money is the root of evil." My people-experience has proven otherwise. Money can't cripple confidence, can't snuff creativity, and can't kill love near as efficiently or quickly as reticence can. If such a money v. reticence race were run, I would place every spare nickel on that "dark horse" and be confident of winning. What's not said destroys more people than money does, I've found.


Hahaha - you're so funny, Savvy! I know what ya mean ;)
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Modus Barbara on October 11, 2008, 11:24:43 AM
Why withhold anything of self, from others? The more you know about self and others about you, the better off all will be. Some contend that mystery adds to relationship allure, so they refrain from two-way sharing of innermost thoughts and desires, effectively keeping Others at ignorance-distance from self. Some contend that the more Others know, the greater the arsenal that can be used against them in the future. Well, the better others know you, the better your chances of achieving desired success and deserved happiness. May the mystery of personal accomplishment be the only mysterious or unknown thing about You!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: American Ale on October 14, 2008, 05:06:48 PM

Why withhold anything of self, from others? The more you know about self and others about you, the better off all will be. Some contend that mystery adds to relationship allure, so they refrain from two-way sharing of innermost thoughts and desires, effectively keeping Others at ignorance-distance from self. Some contend that the more Others know, the greater the arsenal that can be used against them in the future. Well, the better others know you, the better your chances of achieving desired success and deserved happiness. May the mystery of personal accomplishment be the only mysterious or unknown thing about You!


Modus, Personal success and happiness may be self-defined and measured, but are directly or indirectly dependent upon others. There are no coincidences and no mistakes. Wherever you are and whomever you're wuth are musts for some self-important reason. The good and bad experiences you've had, were had for a reason. What and Why are yours to figure out and to do something with or about. If experience picked you out from the crowd there's a good and important reason for that. Only you can or could know why.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Labor Omnia Vincit on October 15, 2008, 06:38:23 PM

A common saying is that "money is the root of evil." My people-experience has proven otherwise. Money can't cripple confidence, can't snuff creativity, and can't kill love near as efficiently or quickly as reticence can. If such a money v. reticence race were run, I would place every spare nickel on that "dark horse" and be confident of winning. What's not said destroys more people than money does, I've found.


Hahaha - you're so funny, Savvy! I know what ya mean ;)


many, I guess the question appears to be: what do you do when what's "not said" when being said turns out to destroy way, way more people than money does? ;)
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: paymen on October 16, 2008, 06:45:30 PM

Modus, Personal success and happiness may be self-defined and measured, but are directly or indirectly dependent upon others. There are no coincidences and no mistakes. Wherever you are and whomever you're wuth are musts for some self-important reason. The good and bad experiences you've had, were had for a reason. What and Why are yours to figure out and to do something with or about. If experience picked you out from the crowd there's a good and important reason for that. Only you can or could know why.


American Ale, as unique as each of us is, we share core commonalities, not the least of which is being plain old, two-eyed, two-eared, one-nosed human. Personal success and happiness are the plainest and oldest human strivings throughout history and probably why there've been so many like-striving companions at each point in time. There has to be good and important reasons for such diversity between people, yet their similarity too. Nothing live on this planet is as complex or complicated as the people who populate it.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: ycer on October 17, 2008, 02:22:45 PM

A common saying is that "money is the root of evil." My people-experience has proven otherwise. Money can't cripple confidence, can't snuff creativity, and can't kill love near as efficiently or quickly as reticence can. If such a money v. reticence race were run, I would place every spare nickel on that "dark horse" and be confident of winning. What's not said destroys more people than money does, I've found.


many, I guess the question appears to be: what do you do when what's "not said" when being said turns out to destroy way, way more people than money does? ;)


Labor, excuse my ignorance, but what exactly do you mean?
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: search engine on October 17, 2008, 03:28:36 PM

A common saying is that "money is the root of evil." My people-experience has proven otherwise. Money can't cripple confidence, can't snuff creativity, and can't kill love near as efficiently or quickly as reticence can. If such a money v. reticence race were run, I would place every spare nickel on that "dark horse" and be confident of winning. What's not said destroys more people than money does, I've found.


Hahaha - you're so funny, Savvy! I know what ya mean ;)


many, I guess the question appears to be: what do you do when what's "not said" when being said turns out to destroy way, way more people than money does? ;)


Would would you get if you combined an emotional vagabond, a dyed-in-the-wool non-conformist and a genius? An outspoken employee garbed in the latest fringe fashion... hoot couture they'd call it, who insults the company president on principle and cares not one whit; who keeps the office in stitches with his barbed wit and comedic brilliance; and who could, given the right inspiration and the VP's corner office (and a midi studio), come up with an idea that could place your company on the stock exchange by noon tomorrow. That's the kind of person they're talking about, I guess. He will do things, say things, and wear things others wouldn't, for fear of ridicule or reprisal. His outrageous actions and sensuous being affords others an opportunity to experience uninhibited and unabashed freedom, vicariously.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: straub on October 20, 2008, 07:48:03 PM
I know some of you won't believe me, but I know a lawyer (he went to a 4th tier law school) who donates sperm to keep up with the loans and the like. He is in his early thirties and has finished law school some 5 years ago, yet he is in financial difficulty. For those of you who are curious, here it is a web page with the biggest sperm banks in the country:

http://www.pinelandpress.com/faq/donor.html#sperm

Make sure the sperm bank is licensed by the state it is in! If it is, you know the state is keeping really close tabs on what the bank is doing with all its sperm. If the bank if not licensed by the state, they could be doing very unpleasant (and possibly illegal) things with the sperm deposits.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: inunction on October 24, 2008, 01:30:50 PM

If the bank if not licensed by the state, they could be doing very unpleasant (and possibly illegal) things with the sperm deposits.


When I was working as a paralegal for a law firm we'd deal with a lot of RESEARCH CONSENT FORMS
in relation to Sperm Donation for Stem Cell Research. They're presented to the men donating sperm in order to create embryos for human embryonic stem cell research projects. Embryonic stem cells can be found in embryos around the 5th day of development. These stem cells have the unique ability to turn into any kind of specialized human cell, such as liver cells, heart cells, pancreatic cells, or nerve cells. For this reason, embryonic stem cells can be used to study, and possibly one day help treat, diseases or injuries that have caused patients' specialized cells to die or become damaged – diseases and injuries such as Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, diabetes, and spinal cord injury.

The new human embryonic stem cells from embryos are created with the sperm through androgenesis. (Androgenesis is the process by which a sperm cell is stimulated to begin going through the very early stages of human development. Stem cells that arise from andogenesis would be genetically matched to the person who provided the sperm). In such cases, none of the sperm you donate is used to produce a baby or a pregnancy. And no embryos created from your sperm will be allowed to develop for more than a total of 14 days after they have been created through the union of sperm and egg; created through androgenesis. If any of the resulting embryos are frozen, then the time that they are frozen is not counted as part of the 14 day limit. Researchers only use your sperm to create embryos from which they attempt to get stem cells before the 14 day limit. The resulting research embryos are destroyed during the stem cell collection process. Usually, there is no guarantee that embryos will be successfully created from your sperm; and there is no guarantee that researchers will be able to get stem cells from any resulting embryos. Researchers routinely discard as medical waste any sperm or embryos they do not use for this research project. 

It is likely that the collected embryonic stem cells will be stored for many years. Embryonic stem cells have the ability to self-renew indefinitely, and they are likely to be used by researchers at other institutions and for many other research purposes. One possible research use of these stored stem cells might involve changing some of their genes. Another possible research use might be to study some of the stem cells by placing them into laboratory animals. In addition, the stored stem cells might be used in the future for new research related to human stem cell transplantation. These are just 3 common examples of what might happen to the stored stem cells. But there are many other future possible research uses that are simply unknown at this time. You will have no say as to which institutions or researchers may share the stem cells made from the embryos that were created using your sperm. If stem cell transplantation studies are developed in the future, you will have no say as to who may be a transplant recipient of the collected stem cells, except in the case of autologous transplantation after androgenesis.
Title: The sperm that got away
Post by: r o b o on October 24, 2008, 01:40:09 PM
"Stolen sperm" is the alleged offence in more and more cases: woman gets pregnant without man's knowledge or consent -- they will usually get the sperm off condoms in trash cans, conserve the sperm in the refrigerator, and later take it to a clinic. The man is required to accept the emotional and financial consequences. Man feels tricked, woman feels abandoned. Sperm warfare ensues.
Title: The Sperm That Got Away
Post by: r o b o on October 24, 2008, 01:49:12 PM
"Stolen sperm" is the alleged offence in more and more cases: woman gets pregnant without man's knowledge or consent -- usually the woman will get the sperm off condoms thrown in trash cans, conserve the sperm in the refrigerator, then take it to a clinic. The man is -- if not bonded to the woman via the child -- at least required to accept the emotional and financial consequences, once the baby is born. Man feels tricked, woman feels abandoned. Sperm warfare ensues.

A more benign example is that of McKiernan who agreed to provide sperm to an unmarried woman (Ferguson) who wished to become a single parent but wanted to use the sperm of someone she knew rather than an anonymous donor. The man agreed not to seek custody or visitation of the child, and the woman agreed not to seek child support. The woman's eggs were then fertilized in vitro with the man's sperm, and resulting embryos are implanted in the woman's womb for gestation. 5 years after giving birth to twins, the woman demands child support payments from the man. The trial court ruled that the contract is unenforceable because parents normally are not permitted to waive child support requirements. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, fearing that no man in his right mind would ever be sperm donor if that ruling is upheld, reversed and freed the man of monthly support obligations.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: r o b o t on October 24, 2008, 01:52:52 PM
A more benign example is that of McKiernan who agreed to provide sperm to an unmarried woman (Ferguson) who wished to become a single parent but wanted to use the sperm of someone she knew rather than an anonymous donor. The man agreed not to seek custody or visitation of the child, and the woman agreed not to seek child support. The woman's eggs were then fertilized in vitro with the man's sperm, and resulting embryos are implanted in the woman's womb for gestation. 5 years after giving birth to twins, the woman demands child support payments from the man. The trial court ruled that the contract is unenforceable because parents normally are not permitted to waive child support requirements. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, fearing that no man in his right mind would ever be sperm donor if that ruling is upheld, reversed and freed the man of monthly support obligations.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: r o b o t on October 24, 2008, 01:53:43 PM
A more benign example is that of McKiernan who agreed to provide sperm to an unmarried woman (Ferguson) who wished to become a single parent but wanted to use the sperm of someone she knew rather than an anonymous donor. The man agreed not to seek custody or visitation of the child, and the woman agreed not to seek child support. The woman's eggs were then fertilized in vitro with the man's sperm, and resulting embryos are implanted in the woman's womb for gestation. 5 years after giving birth to twins, the woman demands child support payments from the man. The trial court ruled that the contract is unenforceable because parents normally are not permitted to waive child support requirements. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, fearing that no man in his right mind would ever be sperm donor if that ruling is upheld, reversed and freed the man of monthly support obligations.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: r o b o t on October 24, 2008, 01:56:15 PM
A more benign example is that of McKiernan who agreed to provide sperm to an unmarried woman (Ferguson) who wished to become a single parent but wanted to use the sperm of someone she knew rather than an anonymous donor. The man agreed not to seek custody or visitation of the child, and the woman agreed not to seek child support. The woman's eggs were then fertilized in vitro with the man's sperm, and resulting embryos are implanted in the woman's womb for gestation. 5 years after giving birth to twins, the woman demands child support payments from the man. The trial court ruled that the contract is unenforceable because parents normally are not permitted to waive child support requirements. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, fearing that no man in his right mind would ever be sperm donor if that ruling is upheld, reversed and freed the man of monthly support obligations.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: r o b o t on October 24, 2008, 01:58:01 PM
A more benign example is that of McKiernan who agreed to provide sperm to an unmarried woman (Ferguson) who wished to become a single parent but wanted to use the sperm of someone she knew rather than an anonymous donor. The man agreed not to seek custody or visitation of the child, and the woman agreed not to seek child support. The woman's eggs were then fertilized in vitro with the man's sperm, and resulting embryos are implanted in the woman's womb for gestation. 5 years after giving birth to twins, the woman demands child support payments from the man. The trial court ruled that the contract is unenforceable because parents normally are not permitted to waive child support requirements. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, fearing that no man in his right mind would ever be sperm donor if that ruling is upheld, reversed and freed the man of monthly support obligations.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: fill the void on October 24, 2008, 02:03:00 PM
A more benign example is that of McKiernan who agreed to provide sperm to an unmarried woman (Ferguson) who wished to become a single parent but wanted to use the sperm of someone she knew rather than an anonymous donor. The man agreed not to seek custody or visitation of the child, and the woman agreed not to seek child support. The woman's eggs were then fertilized in vitro with the man's sperm, and resulting embryos are implanted in the woman's womb for gestation. 5 years after giving birth to twins, the woman demands child support payments from the man. The trial court ruled that the contract is unenforceable because parents normally are not permitted to waive child support requirements. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, fearing that no man in his right mind would ever be sperm donor if that ruling is upheld, reversed and freed the man of monthly support obligations.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: P.O. Box on October 24, 2008, 02:16:07 PM
Hmm, looks like there's a server problem ... anyway, I wanted to post this article related to stem cell research and the like:

Opponents of Michigan's stem cell research initiative -- Proposal 2 -- launched an ad yesterday using the tragic and universally reprehensible Tuskegee Experiments

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html

as a basis for comparison to stem cell research. This ad is replete with myths and misinformation. Distortions about the nature and regulatory environment for stem cell research are many, and it is important to set the facts straight. First, examine the Proposal 2 itself. The proposal explicitly states that "All stem cell research and all stem cell therapies and cures must be conducted and provided in accordance with state and local laws of general applicability, including but not limited to laws concerning scientific and medical practices and patient safety and privacy." Thus, the proposal itself provides for state regulation of this area. Opponents of Proposal 2 appear to have intentionally ignored and under-played this fact in an attempt to scare people. In addition to the potential for state regulation, there are also federal laws that would prevent unethical research in this potentially medically important arena.

First, there is federal law that would prevent unethical stem cell experiments from being performed on human subjects. Under it, Institutional Review Boards must approve any stem cell research involving human subjects, including clinical trials as well as the donation of embryos for the derivation of new embryonic stem cell lines. These review boards must approve patient consent documents and the research methods, to ensure that the scientific goals are ethical and beneficial. Secondly, there are Embryonic Stem Cell Research Oversight (ESCRO) Committees that have been set up under guidance from the National Academy of Sciences to oversee all aspects of embryonic stem cell research. This includes research conducted in laboratory dishes, in patients, and in animals, as well as providing an additional layer of oversight over the derivation of new stem cell lines. ESCRO committee approval is therefore required for all experiments performed with embryonic stem cells. These oversight committees (IRB and ESCRO) are composed of scientists, physicians, ethicists, lawyers, and members of the community.

Next, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates all research done at private companies toward the development and testing of any medical product, and imposes similar regulations to ensure that such research is performed ethically. The International Society for Stem Cell Research, an organization of the world's leading stem cell researchers, stands firmly for the belief that the use of stem cells will transform the lives of patients and offer new treatments for diseases that are currently incurable. Opponents of Proposal 2 have tainted that vision with claims that lead people to incorrectly conclude that such research is unregulated. This is simply not correct. "It is preposterous that opponents of Proposal 2 have tried to link stem cell research with the Tuskegee Experiments, one of the most despicable episodes in American medical history," said Dr. George Q. Daley, ISSCR past-president and associate director of the Stem Cell Program at Children's Hospital Boston. "The ad distorts and misleads. The people of Michigan should reject this cynical misinformation. Michigan scientists have much to offer in this important area of biomedical research, and it is a shame that they would be kept out of the game if this proposal passes."

Proposal 2 offers other protections to ensure the ethical conduct of regulated research by putting in place numerous restrictions of its own, including the following:
   
- Prevent stem cells from being taken from embryos more than 14 days after cell division begins;
- Prohibit the purchase or sale of human embryos, and;
- Assurance that research conducted in Michigan follows all existing and future federal laws.

The proposal would involve only embryos that could not be used for fertility treatment, and that would otherwise be discarded if not donated for research. The embryos would also have to meet the following requirements:

- They were created for the purpose of fertility treatment;
- They were not suitable for implantation or surplus to the clinical need;
- They were donated with the informed consent of the patient;
- Planned to be discarded unless used for research.

Proposal 2 is about one thing. It is about accelerating medical research in Michigan to develop new treatments for currently incurable diseases. "People need accurate information to make responsible decisions," said Dr. Daley. "Voting in favor of Proposal 2 is to vote for reasonable, regulated research in hopes of curing illness and alleviating human suffering." The ISSCR believes that research must continue with all types of stem cells. The International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) is an independent, nonprofit membership organization established to promote and foster the exchange and dissemination of information and ideas relating to stem cells, to encourage the general field of research involving stem cells and to promote professional and public education in all areas of stem cell research and application.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Anti-Stem-Cell-Research-Ad/story.aspx?guid=%7BA042B64E-D4BF-40BC-89C8-BDE3EA1C606A%7D
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: tandem2 on October 24, 2008, 02:52:21 PM
That's all fine and dandy, P.O., but did you read what the other poster (I believe it was injunction) said sperm banks routinely do with sperms

Quote
One possible research use of these stored stem cells might involve changing some of their genes. Another possible research use might be to study some of the stem cells by placing them into laboratory animals. In addition, the stored stem cells might be used in the future for new research related to human stem cell transplantation. These are just 3 common examples of what might happen to the stored stem cells. But there are many other future possible research uses that are simply unknown at this time. You will have no say as to which institutions or researchers may share the stem cells made from the embryos that were created using your sperm. If stem cell transplantation studies are developed in the future, you will have no say as to who may be a transplant recipient of the collected stem cells, except in the case of autologous transplantation after androgenesis.

Basically they're creating human embryos solely for research purposes.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: vögeln on November 12, 2008, 01:57:13 PM
In regard to this thread's topic, I'd make these comments: While legal profession, traditionally has been elite-exclusion and lawyers as known to be "bottom feeders" because of their being relatively unproductive, charging exorbitant rates, and leaching off of the poor, it is also a fact that it is relatively easy to become an attorney in US With a ridiculously high bar passage rate, its not too elite-exclusive. In other countries the lawyers ARE elites. In US their prestige is relatively weak.

This is true of doctors too. Doctors are elites. They leach off the poor. So are CEOs and other high paying jobs. Look, the imperative that doctors and lawyers (the two professions that people think are special and that they are bound by extra moral duties) need to realize that there job is NOT that special. It's just a job. These jobs have a board and a strict rule of conduct but... they don't have a special moral duty that are unique to them. Just get your money, man!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: t h e r m o s on November 17, 2008, 09:30:21 AM
People accumulate wealth because they Work, Save, Invest, Plan

Or

They respect those who Work, Save, Invest, Plan.

People who don't want to Work, Save, Invest, Plan must find other ways to obtain wealth.

Lazy People Steal, Lie, Accuse, Sue, Marry for Money. These Lazy People don't want to earn wealth.

These Lazy People prefer to take it from people like you. Through the US legal system. The US legal system is their leverage because it's based on conflict. This conflict costs money. Your money.

There are many people with a lottery mentality who prefer to use the legal system as a shortcut to manipulate, threaten, intimidate, accuse others.

These people are enabled by attorneys who are primarily interested in personal gain. They instigate conflict in Families, Business, Relationships to generate greater legal fees for themselves.
Title: Morula
Post by: pome on November 17, 2008, 03:53:57 PM
That's all fine and dandy, P.O., but did you read what the other poster (I believe it was injunction) said sperm banks routinely do with sperms

Quote
One possible research use of these stored stem cells might involve changing some of their genes. Another possible research use might be to study some of the stem cells by placing them into laboratory animals. In addition, the stored stem cells might be used in the future for new research related to human stem cell transplantation. These are just 3 common examples of what might happen to the stored stem cells. But there are many other future possible research uses that are simply unknown at this time. You will have no say as to which institutions or researchers may share the stem cells made from the embryos that were created using your sperm. If stem cell transplantation studies are developed in the future, you will have no say as to who may be a transplant recipient of the collected stem cells, except in the case of autologous transplantation after androgenesis.

Basically they're creating human embryos solely for research purposes.


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A company that devised a way to make embryonic stem cells using a technique it said does not harm human embryos reported on Thursday it has grown 5 batches of cells using this method and urged President George W. Bush to endorse it. Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technology has been working with a method sometimes used to test embryos for severe genetic diseases. Called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, it involves taking a single cell from an embryo when it contains only 8 or so cells. The method usually does not harm the embryo, which is frozen for possible future implantation into the mother's womb. The ACT team also froze the embryos and used the single cell that was removed as a source of human embryonic stem cells.

Dr. Robert Lanza, ACT's scientific director, said it provides a way to create mass quantities of embryonic stem cells without harming a human embryo. Current stem cell technologies require the embryo's destruction. "This is a working technology that exists here and now. It could be used to increase the number of stem cell lines available to federal researchers immediately," Lanza said by e-mail. "We could send these cells out to researchers tomorrow." What I want to know is when the embryo "contains only 8 or so cells" isn't it so that at that stage of development that each one of those 8 could still (at least in theory) become an octuplet? How would we ever know? I mean, just because the other 6 or 7might not separate into septuplets or sextuplets, can we really be sure? I'm sure that there are those who would consider the destruction of a possible octuplet to be the destruction of a human being. I think it only highlights the illogic of the argument. For, if you don't know how many people an "embryo" might in theory become, then who knows how many souls would have been lost? If we see potential souls as real souls, the possibilities are limited only by the imagination.

At some point in October of 1953, a sperm cell from my father managed to penetrate one of my mom's eggs, and a blastomere was formed. That blastomere divided repeatedly, soon becoming group of cells called a morula, then a blastocyst and eventually these cells united into the fetus that became the infant me. Here's what "I" looked like when I was a morula:

(http://www.classicalvalues.com/Morula.jpg)

For reasons of honesty, I had to put the word "I" in quotes, because "I" was not yet me, and "I" might have been more than one me. Suppose some scientist had stolen one of "my" cells and left the rest to continue to divide and unite (yeah, I know that's a mouthful of contradictions, but this is a contradictory process). I'd still be me, right? When scientists bisect blastocysts, they can theoretically create as many as they want:

Quote
The blastocysts were bisected symmetrically so as to leave a cellular bridge between the sister half-embryos after the softening of zonae followed by or without the trypsin/EDTA treatment. Transfer of 47 monozygotic (MZ) pairs of half-blastocysts to nine recipients resulted in four pregnancies. A litter of nine fetuses was obtained from seven MZ pairs of half-blastocysts, demonstrating that at least two pairs of MZ twin fetuses were produced. It is thought that the procedure for bisecting blastocysts developed in this study is one of the potential methods of producing porcine MZ twins.

Fertility specialists who implant human blastocysts are well aware of the potential for unwanted twinning, tripletting, or quadrupletting, and take pains to guard against it. But how do we know that because of some quirky sort of hegemonic behavior at the cellular level, some of my cells at the morula or blastocyst stage stopped what would have been my twin (or even triplets) from developing? Might "I" have been complicit in this murder of one of my "cell" mates before I was born? Might I have even cannibalized my potential brothers, and forced them to become part of that human monster that I call me?

Perhaps original sin starts before birth after all.

(http://www.angryharry.com/images/morula.gif)
Title: Der Besuch der Alten Dame
Post by: m e t a n o i a on November 24, 2008, 06:56:49 PM
"The Visit of the Old Lady" is a 1956 tragicomedy by the Swiss dramatist Friedrich Dürrenmatt. The location of the drama is Gúllen, a once flourishing small town that lost its ancient bloom when its industrial plants closed down and business took a plunge. The forgotten, poverty-stricken inhabitants of Gúllen are by now used to a modest life, spending the major part of their days reminiscing about better times, until one day the arrival of the "Old Lady" alters the Gúlleners' existence at a stroke. Claire Zachanassian, a native of Gúllen whose profitable marriages to oil magnates, artists and industrialists have made her extremely rich, and her strange court consisting of two blind servants, two former gangsters, a butler and Husband Number 7, are met with sincere enthusiasm by the citizens of Gúllen at the railway station. And they are not disappointed. Claire promises to donate a billion to the township on one condition - Ill, a merchant of Gúllen, must be killed. In years gone by, Ill had a love affair with Claire. Claire became pregnant and claimed that Ill was the father. But with the help of two friends - now her two blind servants - Ill was able to escape responsibility.

(http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/6997/EinemTheVisitCarolRoseggL.jpg)

Claire had to leave Gúllen and live as a prostitute, until she met her first rich husband. The stipulated murder is a planned revenge against Ill and the Gúllen inhabitants. In the course of time, Claire has acquired the industrial plants and the entire town, in order to ruin them. The first reaction of the Gúllen citizens is water-tight solidarity with Ill, but gradually it begins to spring leaks. Their opinions change from "poor soul, guilty of a childhood misdemeanor" to "irresponsible, immoral evil-doer". At the same time, the people of Gúllen indulge in new, luxury goods — on credit — represented by new, yellow shoes, which are soon worn by all citizens, including even police officers and the mayor. Even his own family are not spared the attraction of increasing lucre. His wife buys a fur coat, his son a car, and his daughter takes lessons in tennis. Only the teacher evokes the humanist tradition, and attempts, at first timidly, to interpose himself before the death sentence that has, by now, come to be seen as immutable. In the end, even Ill accepts his fate. In a climactic town gathering, Ill receives his sentence, which is immediately carried out by the people of Gúllen.

The fundamental underlying point of the play is that money can allure people's minds, especially those weakly determined. It also notices how money creates the power to control the world around. As the arrival of Claire Zachanassian shows, the promise of money can lead people to hate and even murder. It can pervert the course of justice, and even turn the local teacher, who is one of the few who manage to warn Alfred Ill of his impending doom. The teacher is a self-declared humanist, and his moral collapse, as well as that of the priest, demonstrates the power of money to overcome both religious and secular morality. It suggests that greed can turn anyone.The usage of this theme also develops around the main idea of "money-hungry".
Title: Re: Der Besuch der Alten Dame
Post by: Four,Christmases on December 01, 2008, 07:09:42 PM

"The Visit of the Old Lady" is a 1956 tragicomedy by the Swiss dramatist Friedrich Dürrenmatt. The location of the drama is Gúllen, a once flourishing small town that lost its ancient bloom when its industrial plants closed down and business took a plunge. The forgotten, poverty-stricken inhabitants of Gúllen are by now used to a modest life, spending the major part of their days reminiscing about better times, until one day the arrival of the "Old Lady" alters the Gúlleners' existence at a stroke. Claire Zachanassian, a native of Gúllen whose profitable marriages to oil magnates, artists and industrialists have made her extremely rich, and her strange court consisting of two blind servants, two former gangsters, a butler and Husband Number 7, are met with sincere enthusiasm by the citizens of Gúllen at the railway station. And they are not disappointed. Claire promises to donate a billion to the township on one condition - Ill, a merchant of Gúllen, must be killed. In years gone by, Ill had a love affair with Claire. Claire became pregnant and claimed that Ill was the father. But with the help of two friends - now her two blind servants - Ill was able to escape responsibility.

(http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/6997/EinemTheVisitCarolRoseggL.jpg)

Claire had to leave Gúllen and live as a prostitute, until she met her first rich husband. The stipulated murder is a planned revenge against Ill and the Gúllen inhabitants. In the course of time, Claire has acquired the industrial plants and the entire town, in order to ruin them. The first reaction of the Gúllen citizens is water-tight solidarity with Ill, but gradually it begins to spring leaks. Their opinions change from "poor soul, guilty of a childhood misdemeanor" to "irresponsible, immoral evil-doer". At the same time, the people of Gúllen indulge in new, luxury goods — on credit — represented by new, yellow shoes, which are soon worn by all citizens, including even police officers and the mayor. Even his own family are not spared the attraction of increasing lucre. His wife buys a fur coat, his son a car, and his daughter takes lessons in tennis. Only the teacher evokes the humanist tradition, and attempts, at first timidly, to interpose himself before the death sentence that has, by now, come to be seen as immutable. In the end, even Ill accepts his fate. In a climactic town gathering, Ill receives his sentence, which is immediately carried out by the people of Gúllen.

The fundamental underlying point of the play is that money can allure people's minds, especially those weakly determined. It also notices how money creates the power to control the world around. As the arrival of Claire Zachanassian shows, the promise of money can lead people to hate and even murder. It can pervert the course of justice, and even turn the local teacher, who is one of the few who manage to warn Alfred Ill of his impending doom. The teacher is a self-declared humanist, and his moral collapse, as well as that of the priest, demonstrates the power of money to overcome both religious and secular morality. It suggests that greed can turn anyone.The usage of this theme also develops around the main idea of "money-hungry".


Interesting play this one of Durrenmatt, meta!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: latitude on January 02, 2009, 08:53:18 AM

A common saying is that "money is the root of evil." My people-experience has proven otherwise. Money can't cripple confidence, can't snuff creativity, and can't kill love near as efficiently or quickly as reticence can. If such a money v. reticence race were run, I would place every spare nickel on that "dark horse" and be confident of winning. What's not said destroys more people than money does, I've found.


Hahaha - you're so funny, Savvy! I know what ya mean ;)


many, I guess the question appears to be: what do you do when what's "not said" when being said turns out to destroy way, way more people than money does? ;)


Would would you get if you combined an emotional vagabond, a dyed-in-the-wool non-conformist and a genius? An outspoken employee garbed in the latest fringe fashion... hoot couture they'd call it, who insults the company president on principle and cares not one whit; who keeps the office in stitches with his barbed wit and comedic brilliance; and who could, given the right inspiration and the VP's corner office (and a midi studio), come up with an idea that could place your company on the stock exchange by noon tomorrow. That's the kind of person they're talking about, I guess. He will do things, say things, and wear things others wouldn't, for fear of ridicule or reprisal. His outrageous actions and sensuous being affords others an opportunity to experience uninhibited and unabashed freedom, vicariously.


Meaning?

search engine? Anyone? 
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: M_Cool on January 02, 2009, 09:17:36 AM
It could be worse.  At least as a lawyer you are pretty much guaranteed work and at least 50k a year out of school.  From that 5 years out you will probably be making at least 100k.  That's really not that bad despite the debt for the lowest in the profession.  There's a lot of other professions/students who wind up with debt and struggle to even find employment in their field .. like PhD's in philosophy/history etc. 
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: opinion on January 22, 2009, 10:53:06 AM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A company that devised a way to make embryonic stem cells using a technique it said does not harm human embryos reported on Thursday it has grown 5 batches of cells using this method and urged President George W. Bush to endorse it. Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technology has been working with a method sometimes used to test embryos for severe genetic diseases. Called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, it involves taking a single cell from an embryo when it contains only 8 or so cells. The method usually does not harm the embryo, which is frozen for possible future implantation into the mother's womb. The ACT team also froze the embryos and used the single cell that was removed as a source of human embryonic stem cells.

Dr. Robert Lanza, ACT's scientific director, said it provides a way to create mass quantities of embryonic stem cells without harming a human embryo. Current stem cell technologies require the embryo's destruction. "This is a working technology that exists here and now. It could be used to increase the number of stem cell lines available to federal researchers immediately," Lanza said by e-mail. "We could send these cells out to researchers tomorrow." What I want to know is when the embryo "contains only 8 or so cells" isn't it so that at that stage of development that each one of those 8 could still (at least in theory) become an octuplet? How would we ever know? I mean, just because the other 6 or 7might not separate into septuplets or sextuplets, can we really be sure? I'm sure that there are those who would consider the destruction of a possible octuplet to be the destruction of a human being. I think it only highlights the illogic of the argument. For, if you don't know how many people an "embryo" might in theory become, then who knows how many souls would have been lost? If we see potential souls as real souls, the possibilities are limited only by the imagination.

At some point in October of 1953, a sperm cell from my father managed to penetrate one of my mom's eggs, and a blastomere was formed. That blastomere divided repeatedly, soon becoming group of cells called a morula, then a blastocyst and eventually these cells united into the fetus that became the infant me. Here's what "I" looked like when I was a morula:

(http://www.classicalvalues.com/Morula.jpg)

For reasons of honesty, I had to put the word "I" in quotes, because "I" was not yet me, and "I" might have been more than one me. Suppose some scientist had stolen one of "my" cells and left the rest to continue to divide and unite (yeah, I know that's a mouthful of contradictions, but this is a contradictory process). I'd still be me, right? When scientists bisect blastocysts, they can theoretically create as many as they want:

Quote
The blastocysts were bisected symmetrically so as to leave a cellular bridge between the sister half-embryos after the softening of zonae followed by or without the trypsin/EDTA treatment. Transfer of 47 monozygotic (MZ) pairs of half-blastocysts to nine recipients resulted in four pregnancies. A litter of nine fetuses was obtained from seven MZ pairs of half-blastocysts, demonstrating that at least two pairs of MZ twin fetuses were produced. It is thought that the procedure for bisecting blastocysts developed in this study is one of the potential methods of producing porcine MZ twins.

Fertility specialists who implant human blastocysts are well aware of the potential for unwanted twinning, tripletting, or quadrupletting, and take pains to guard against it. But how do we know that because of some quirky sort of hegemonic behavior at the cellular level, some of my cells at the morula or blastocyst stage stopped what would have been my twin (or even triplets) from developing? Might "I" have been complicit in this murder of one of my "cell" mates before I was born? Might I have even cannibalized my potential brothers, and forced them to become part of that human monster that I call me?

Perhaps original sin starts before birth after all.

(http://www.angryharry.com/images/morula.gif)


Could you expand a bit, pome?
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Peter s Father In Law on January 23, 2009, 08:22:39 AM
opinion, Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis raises some interesting ethical issues: German bioethicist Edgar Dahl, for instance, raises and dismisses 5 objections to the future use of embryo screening to choose the sexual orientation of children. He does not mention any evidence for, or controversy about, a "gay gene," but concludes that if a "safe and reliable genetic test" for sexual orientation were to become available, "parents should clearly be allowed" to use it, as long as they are permitted to select for homosexual as well as heterosexual children. Dahl has previously argued that PGD should be allowed for sex selection for social reasons.]

Should parents be allowed to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis to choose the sexual orientation of their children? Extending the application of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to screen embryos for non-medical traits such as gender, height and intelligence, raises serious moral, legal, and social issues. The most challenging ethical issues are posed by the prospect of using PGD to screen embryos for non-medical traits such as gender, height and intelligence. The possibility of using PGD to select the sexual orientation of offspring: if a safe and reliable genetic test were ever to become available, should parents be allowed to use PGD to choose the sexual orientation of their children?

1. The first objection that can be raised might be as follows: PGD is a medical procedure designed to detect genetic disorders. Since homosexuality is not a disease, PGD should not be employed to ensure the birth of heterosexual children. This is a familiar objection in debates over PGD. However, as familiar as it may be, it is certainly not a persuasive one. We have already become accustomed to a medical system in which physicians often provide services that have no direct medical benefit but that do have great personal value for the individuals seeking it. Given the acceptance of breast enlargement, hair replacement, ultrasound assisted liposuction and other forms of cosmetic surgery, one cannot, without calling that system into question, condemn a practice merely because it uses a medical procedure for lifestyle or child-rearing choices.

2. A second objection could claim that a state permitting the use of PGD to ensure a heterosexual orientation in one's children would be open to the charge of discrimination against its homosexual citizens. But this claim is simply untenable. Granting its citizens a right to use PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual children is not the same as placing them under a duty to use PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual children. Only a state coercing its citizens into using PGD to prevent homosexual offspring would be open to the charge of discrimination.

3. A third objection might assert that, even though it would not be discrimination on the part of the state, it would certainly be discrimination on the part of the prospective parents if they were to use PGD to prevent the birth of homosexual children. This argument is similarly misguided, though. Preferring a heterosexual over a homosexual child does not in itself in any way betray a negative judgment about the value of gay and lesbian individuals. Admittedly, some parents would certainly seek PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual children because they are bigots anxiously adhering to the old clichés that homosexuality is a `disease', a `perversion' or a `sin'. Still, most parents using PGD to select the sexual orientation of their offspring would probably do so simply because they wish to see their children getting married, building a family and having children of their own. And the desire to have children who share the same sexual orientation as oneself is certainly not a morally objectionable interest.

4. A fourth objection may be that using PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual children will impede the cause of the Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement as it is likely to lead to a gradual decline of the homosexual population. More precisely, it could be argued that a decrease in the number of gay and lesbian persons will inevitably cause a decrease in the public support for gay and lesbian people. This is, of course, a factual claim for which empirical data must be marshalled. Given the burdens and expenses of the procedure, it is very unlikely that PGD will ever considerably reduce the number of homosexual individuals. More importantly, reducing the number of gays and lesbians does not necessarily imply a reduced concern for the cause of homosexual people, as is evidenced by the case of disabled persons. Although the number of people born with disabilities has decreased, the support for people with disabilities has increased. Hence, it is far from being obvious that using PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual offspring would inevitably worsen the situation of homosexual people.

5. A fifth objection might point to the fact that PGD generally implies discarding embryos. Thus, it could be argued that the desire to choose the sexual orientation of one's children does not justify the deliberate creation and destruction of human embryos. Whether or not this objection is viable entirely depends on the moral status accorded to embryos. Since this is not the place to review all the arguments for and against the `sanctity of human life', I restrict myself to saying that I doubt that there are sound reasons for granting embryos individual rights. The purpose of individual rights is the moral and legal protection of fundamental interests. Since embryos are too rudimentary in development to have interests there is simply no basis to grant them rights. If at all, embryos might be seen as having some `symbolic value' preventing them from being destroyed for any purpose whatsoever. Since the desire to have children of a particular sexual orientation is a morally legitimate reason, creating and destroying embryos of the undesired sexual orientation would certainly be justified.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Vasiliki on January 27, 2009, 08:25:20 AM
Hahaha Peter's FIL - you're so funny! ;)
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Kocci on February 01, 2009, 10:04:58 AM
What's so funny about it, Vasiliki?
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: sluglaw on February 02, 2009, 12:23:16 PM
A common saying is that "money is the root of evil." My people-experience has proven otherwise. Money can't cripple confidence, can't snuff creativity, and can't kill love near as efficiently or quickly as reticence can. If such a money v. reticence race were run, I would place every spare nickel on that "dark horse" and be confident of winning. What's not said destroys more people than money does, I've found.

The original saying was actually "the love of money is the root of all evil."  If it was just money that wouldn't make sense, especially given the Christian mandate to give charity.  Money is a rather neutral thing, it can be used for good or bad.  A person who chases money and will do anything is prone to do evil in pursuit of that money; a person who does something for its inherent value and gets money incidentally in the process is in a very different situation.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: perçi on February 12, 2009, 05:31:15 PM

What's so funny about it, Vasiliki?


I'll have to agree with Vasiliki, here, Kocci - Peter's post is indeed kinda funny!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: coban on February 12, 2009, 05:58:18 PM

Hmm, the motive of the famous Greek sirtaki -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpMW1Z1FiTo&feature=related


Not really - Sirtaki appears as the first on the left - the actual video URL posted is just some Ourania and Spiro * & ^ %!

I really hate it when people try to be smart asses! 


You guys have to be kidding me with all this Greek * & ^ %!

I mean, come on!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: soft power on April 14, 2009, 07:58:23 AM

People accumulate wealth because they Work, Save, Invest, Plan

Or

They respect those who Work, Save, Invest, Plan.

People who don't want to Work, Save, Invest, Plan must find other ways to obtain wealth.

Lazy People Steal, Lie, Accuse, Sue, Marry for Money. These Lazy People don't want to earn wealth.

These Lazy People prefer to take it from people like you. Through the US legal system. The US legal system is their leverage because it's based on conflict. This conflict costs money. Your money.

There are many people with a lottery mentality who prefer to use the legal system as a shortcut to manipulate, threaten, intimidate, accuse others.

These people are enabled by attorneys who are primarily interested in personal gain. They instigate conflict in Families, Business, Relationships to generate greater legal fees for themselves.


Sounds like an ad to me.
Title: Re: Law School by Default
Post by: I Love Therefore I Am on May 15, 2009, 08:24:42 AM
Want to keep your options open? Don't train to be a lawyer.

BY CAMERON STRACHER

Friday, June 23, 2006

They're dropping like flies. Count 'em. Despite the swelling ranks of the new recruits, the steady growth in large corporate firms, and the length, breadth and expense of lawsuits, the legal profession is actually losing lawyers every day, a silent drain of talent to banking, business and premature retirement. Every year, I face a new class of eager law students, ready to take on the world, but after a couple of years of practice, many have lost their youthful glow. Perhaps it's time to rethink the whole "law school as default" mentality that infects so many otherwise sane young minds.

On the surface, the legal profession appears to be booming. Although growth has slowed since the 1960s and '70s, each year 40,000 new lawyers join a field that now totals one million, about the same size as the nation's state prison population. Salaries have climbed steadily, and lawyers at the top firms can expect to make about $160,000 upon graduation from law school. But look beneath the statistics and a few facts jump out. First, large law firms, those employing more than 500 lawyers, lose nearly 40% of their associates within four years of hiring them. After six years, the ratio climbs to 60%.

Some might suggest that the fault here lies with the firms' policies regarding advancement. A number of recent articles have bemoaned the lack of female partners (only 17% of the partners at major law firms are women, while women compose nearly half of all law-school graduates). The number of males who don't stick around long enough to make partner, however, is only a few percentage points lower. Thus, while it may not be easy to be a woman in law, the guys aren't doing much better. In fact, it could be argued that women are leaving in slightly higher numbers because they can while many men, trapped by their gender-typed "provider" roles, have fewer options.

The attrition numbers are even worse in other parts of the profession. According to a recent study by the National Association for Law Placement Foundation, 42% of lawyers in small firms (and 50% in solo practices) have changed jobs within three years of graduation, and two-thirds of them have switched two or more times. One way to interpret the numbers is to conclude that such lawyers have plentiful opportunities and are moving to better jobs. The same group, however, tends to have less stellar credentials and to have graduated lower in their class than their colleagues at big firms, leaving them fewer options, and suggesting that these attorneys are even more dissatisfied than their big-firm contemporaries.

What happens to the recently departed? While many go to other law firms, or into other legal jobs, such as in-house counsel at corporations, anecdotal evidence shows that a significant percentage drop out of the legal profession entirely. This doesn't surprise me: Among my own law school classmates, for example, only one of my friends is still practicing at the firm he joined upon graduation. The rest have moved on or dropped out of the profession.

My two closest female friends are both stay-at-home moms, forsaking lucrative practices to raise their children. Another friend has gone on to become an actor. Another writes for television. Several are novelists. While there have always been lawyers who choose not to practice, "The buzz now is lawyers getting three years of experience at a big firm, then going off and doing something entirely unrelated to the law," says Allan Whitescarver, director of communications at the commercial firm, Clifford Chance. He mentions one lawyer who opened a bookstore in France and another who works for the World Health Organization in a nonlegal role. They may be among the lucky ones. The legal profession is really two professions: the elite lawyers and everyone else. Most of the former start out at big law firms. Many of the latter never find gainful legal employment. Instead, they work at jobs that might be characterized as "quasi-legal": paralegals, clerks, administrators, doing work for which they probably never needed a J.D.

Although hard data about the nature of these jobs are difficult to come by (and rely on self-reporting, which is inherently unreliable), the mean salary for graduates of top 10 law schools is $135,000 while it is $60,000 for "tier three" schools. It's certainly possible that tier-three graduates tend to gravitate toward lower-paying public-interest and government jobs, but this lower salary may also reflect the nonlegal nature of many of these jobs and the fact that these graduates are settling for anything that will pay the bills. At $38,000 a year for law school, plus living expenses, law-school graduates certainly have a lot of debt ($60,000 on average, upon graduation). For this price, college students and their parents should be thinking harder about their choices. When I went to law school, nearly everyone tried to convince me that doing so would "keep my options open." All this really means is: "You can still be a lawyer."

(http://opinionjournal.com/taste/062306lawyers.jpg)

If I wanted to be a screenwriter, waiting tables would have kept my options open, too. In fact, many wannabe screenwriters find themselves going to law school, misled by adults into thinking that it will help them get into the movie business. It won't. Sure, you can be a talent agent or a movie producer with a law degree, but you can be one without a degree, too. Most of the skills you learn in law school (and legal practice) won't help you make a movie, and the few that will may not be worth the cost (more than $120,000, including tuition, living expenses, as well as three years of forgone experience and salary). Rather than keeping options open, the crushing debt of law school often slams doors shut, pushing law students to find the highest-paying job they can and forever deferring dreams of anything else.

It's time those of us inside the profession did a better job of telling others outside the profession that most of us don't earn $160,000 a year, that we can't afford expensive suits, flashy cars, sexy apartments. We don't lunch with rock stars or produce movies. Every year I'm surprised by the number of my students who think a J.D. degree is a ticket to fame, fortune and the envy of one's peers -- a sure ticket to the upper middle class. Even for the select few for whom it is, not many last long enough at their law firms to really enjoy it. There's something wrong with a system that makes a whole lot of people pay a whole lot of money for jobs that are not worth it, or that have no future. If we wanted to be honest, we would inform students that law school doesn't keep their options open. Instead, we should say that if they work hard and do well, they can become lawyers.

_____________________________ _____________________________ ____________________________
Mr. Stracher is publisher of the New York Law School Law Review and the author of "Double Billing: A Young Lawyer's Tale of Greed, Sex, Lies and the Pursuit of a Swivel Chair."


Great post!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Talk Is Cheap on May 15, 2009, 01:22:53 PM
^^^ That was a stupid article. All of the people he cited were women who took the age-old "drop out for kids/life balance" route. Also, his other argument is seemingly "being a lawyer sucks and doesn't let you be a talent agent or something cool." Yeah, I used to have dreams of being something cool when I was little, too.

I bet it's 10x harder to make a real living as a talent agent than as a lawyer, pal.
All of these people always complain about how "hard" and unfulfulling the law can be. I guess they'd be happier by default if they were broke and working in some stupid "creative industry." That doesn't apply to people with real jobs.

Being a truck driver is long, miserable work too. By the logic of this article, if truck drivers don't like it, they should just go into a field that's more "fun."

 ::)

Sorry, but I'm really sick of people bitching about the legal profession. We've all heard the gripes. If you are unhappy, leave. If you have doubts about working in the law, then don't become a lawyer. Lawyers who are unhappy should realize that most jobs blow and are soul-sucking. Since when did everyone fall under the illusion that we're all entitled to have super-fun jobs and work at the Googleplex?
Title: Re: Der Besuch der Alten Dame
Post by: shevardnadze on February 22, 2011, 05:58:18 PM
"The Visit of the Old Lady" is a 1956 tragicomedy by the Swiss dramatist Friedrich Dürrenmatt. The location of the drama is Gúllen, a once flourishing small town that lost its ancient bloom when its industrial plants closed down and business took a plunge. The forgotten, poverty-stricken inhabitants of Gúllen are by now used to a modest life, spending the major part of their days reminiscing about better times, until one day the arrival of the "Old Lady" alters the Gúlleners' existence at a stroke. Claire Zachanassian, a native of Gúllen whose profitable marriages to oil magnates, artists and industrialists have made her extremely rich, and her strange court consisting of two blind servants, two former gangsters, a butler and Husband Number 7, are met with sincere enthusiasm by the citizens of Gúllen at the railway station. And they are not disappointed. Claire promises to donate a billion to the township on one condition - Ill, a merchant of Gúllen, must be killed. In years gone by, Ill had a love affair with Claire. Claire became pregnant and claimed that Ill was the father. But with the help of two friends - now her two blind servants - Ill was able to escape responsibility.

(http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/6997/EinemTheVisitCarolRoseggL.jpg)

Claire had to leave Gúllen and live as a prostitute, until she met her first rich husband. The stipulated murder is a planned revenge against Ill and the Gúllen inhabitants. In the course of time, Claire has acquired the industrial plants and the entire town, in order to ruin them. The first reaction of the Gúllen citizens is water-tight solidarity with Ill, but gradually it begins to spring leaks. Their opinions change from "poor soul, guilty of a childhood misdemeanor" to "irresponsible, immoral evil-doer". At the same time, the people of Gúllen indulge in new, luxury goods — on credit — represented by new, yellow shoes, which are soon worn by all citizens, including even police officers and the mayor. Even his own family are not spared the attraction of increasing lucre. His wife buys a fur coat, his son a car, and his daughter takes lessons in tennis. Only the teacher evokes the humanist tradition, and attempts, at first timidly, to interpose himself before the death sentence that has, by now, come to be seen as immutable. In the end, even Ill accepts his fate. In a climactic town gathering, Ill receives his sentence, which is immediately carried out by the people of Gúllen.

The fundamental underlying point of the play is that money can allure people's minds, especially those weakly determined. It also notices how money creates the power to control the world around. As the arrival of Claire Zachanassian shows, the promise of money can lead people to hate and even murder. It can pervert the course of justice, and even turn the local teacher, who is one of the few who manage to warn Alfred Ill of his impending doom. The teacher is a self-declared humanist, and his moral collapse, as well as that of the priest, demonstrates the power of money to overcome both religious and secular morality. It suggests that greed can turn anyone.The usage of this theme also develops around the main idea of "money-hungry".


A very interesting post, metanoia - they do not say in vain, "money is root of all evil."
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: lawstudent2011 on February 22, 2011, 06:31:38 PM
flame.

How come I've never met a poor lawyer .. they all seem to be rich .. yet some people here say that many lawyers dont really make much money ??
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: Prends Garde à Toi! on February 26, 2011, 07:37:10 PM

"The Visit of the Old Lady" is a 1956 tragicomedy by the Swiss dramatist Friedrich Dürrenmatt. The location of the drama is Gúllen, a once flourishing small town that lost its ancient bloom when its industrial plants closed down and business took a plunge. The forgotten, poverty-stricken inhabitants of Gúllen are by now used to a modest life, spending the major part of their days reminiscing about better times, until one day the arrival of the "Old Lady" alters the Gúlleners' existence at a stroke. Claire Zachanassian, a native of Gúllen whose profitable marriages to oil magnates, artists and industrialists have made her extremely rich, and her strange court consisting of two blind servants, two former gangsters, a butler and Husband Number 7, are met with sincere enthusiasm by the citizens of Gúllen at the railway station. And they are not disappointed. Claire promises to donate a billion to the township on one condition - Ill, a merchant of Gúllen, must be killed. In years gone by, Ill had a love affair with Claire. Claire became pregnant and claimed that Ill was the father. But with the help of two friends - now her two blind servants - Ill was able to escape responsibility.

(http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/6997/EinemTheVisitCarolRoseggL.jpg)

Claire had to leave Gúllen and live as a prostitute, until she met her first rich husband. The stipulated murder is a planned revenge against Ill and the Gúllen inhabitants. In the course of time, Claire has acquired the industrial plants and the entire town, in order to ruin them. The first reaction of the Gúllen citizens is water-tight solidarity with Ill, but gradually it begins to spring leaks. Their opinions change from "poor soul, guilty of a childhood misdemeanor" to "irresponsible, immoral evil-doer". At the same time, the people of Gúllen indulge in new, luxury goods — on credit — represented by new, yellow shoes, which are soon worn by all citizens, including even police officers and the mayor. Even his own family are not spared the attraction of increasing lucre. His wife buys a fur coat, his son a car, and his daughter takes lessons in tennis. Only the teacher evokes the humanist tradition, and attempts, at first timidly, to interpose himself before the death sentence that has, by now, come to be seen as immutable. In the end, even Ill accepts his fate. In a climactic town gathering, Ill receives his sentence, which is immediately carried out by the people of Gúllen.

The fundamental underlying point of the play is that money can allure people's minds, especially those weakly determined. It also notices how money creates the power to control the world around. As the arrival of Claire Zachanassian shows, the promise of money can lead people to hate and even murder. It can pervert the course of justice, and even turn the local teacher, who is one of the few who manage to warn Alfred Ill of his impending doom. The teacher is a self-declared humanist, and his moral collapse, as well as that of the priest, demonstrates the power of money to overcome both religious and secular morality. It suggests that greed can turn anyone.The usage of this theme also develops around the main idea of "money-hungry".


A very interesting post, metanoia - they do not say in vain, "money is root of all evil."


Awesome on your part to point us to metanoia's post, sheverdnaze -- the Durrenmatt's play is indeed brilliant.

We'd be lucky to have posters like you on this forum, ones that make meaningful contributions to the threads.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: MikePing on February 27, 2011, 09:38:59 AM
Spam tastes good!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: folate on April 25, 2011, 12:10:55 PM

If the bank if not licensed by the state, they could be doing very unpleasant (and possibly illegal) things with the sperm deposits.


When I was working as a paralegal for a law firm we'd deal with a lot of RESEARCH CONSENT FORMS
in relation to Sperm Donation for Stem Cell Research. They're presented to the men donating sperm in order to create embryos for human embryonic stem cell research projects. Embryonic stem cells can be found in embryos around the 5th day of development. These stem cells have the unique ability to turn into any kind of specialized human cell, such as liver cells, heart cells, pancreatic cells, or nerve cells. For this reason, embryonic stem cells can be used to study, and possibly one day help treat, diseases or injuries that have caused patients' specialized cells to die or become damaged – diseases and injuries such as Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, diabetes, and spinal cord injury.

The new human embryonic stem cells from embryos are created with the sperm through androgenesis. (Androgenesis is the process by which a sperm cell is stimulated to begin going through the very early stages of human development. Stem cells that arise from andogenesis would be genetically matched to the person who provided the sperm). In such cases, none of the sperm you donate is used to produce a baby or a pregnancy. And no embryos created from your sperm will be allowed to develop for more than a total of 14 days after they have been created through the union of sperm and egg; created through androgenesis. If any of the resulting embryos are frozen, then the time that they are frozen is not counted as part of the 14 day limit. Researchers only use your sperm to create embryos from which they attempt to get stem cells before the 14 day limit. The resulting research embryos are destroyed during the stem cell collection process. Usually, there is no guarantee that embryos will be successfully created from your sperm; and there is no guarantee that researchers will be able to get stem cells from any resulting embryos. Researchers routinely discard as medical waste any sperm or embryos they do not use for this research project. 

It is likely that the collected embryonic stem cells will be stored for many years. Embryonic stem cells have the ability to self-renew indefinitely, and they are likely to be used by researchers at other institutions and for many other research purposes. One possible research use of these stored stem cells might involve changing some of their genes. Another possible research use might be to study some of the stem cells by placing them into laboratory animals. In addition, the stored stem cells might be used in the future for new research related to human stem cell transplantation. These are just 3 common examples of what might happen to the stored stem cells. But there are many other future possible research uses that are simply unknown at this time. You will have no say as to which institutions or researchers may share the stem cells made from the embryos that were created using your sperm. If stem cell transplantation studies are developed in the future, you will have no say as to who may be a transplant recipient of the collected stem cells, except in the case of autologous transplantation after androgenesis.


This is becoming indeed a problem in many states - I guess it'll continue to be an issue during the 2012 elections.
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: B a i k a l on July 31, 2011, 11:46:03 AM

A common saying is that "money is the root of evil." My people-experience has proven otherwise. Money can't cripple confidence, can't snuff creativity, and can't kill love near as efficiently or quickly as reticence can. If such a money v. reticence race were run, I would place every spare nickel on that "dark horse" and be confident of winning. What's not said destroys more people than money does, I've found.


Hahaha - you're so funny, Savvy! I know what ya mean ;)


many, I guess the question appears to be: what do you do when what's "not said" when being said turns out to destroy way, way more people than money does? ;)


Would would you get if you combined an emotional vagabond, a dyed-in-the-wool non-conformist and a genius? An outspoken employee garbed in the latest fringe fashion... hoot couture they'd call it, who insults the company president on principle and cares not one whit; who keeps the office in stitches with his barbed wit and comedic brilliance; and who could, given the right inspiration and the VP's corner office (and a midi studio), come up with an idea that could place your company on the stock exchange by noon tomorrow. That's the kind of person they're talking about, I guess. He will do things, say things, and wear things others wouldn't, for fear of ridicule or reprisal. His outrageous actions and sensuous being affords others an opportunity to experience uninhibited and unabashed freedom, vicariously.


Wow - that's a very interesting post, search engine! Is it some kind of specific profile?
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: L.B. on November 15, 2011, 06:18:29 PM
In regard to this thread's topic, I'd make these comments: While legal profession, traditionally has been elite-exclusion and lawyers as known to be "bottom feeders" because of their being relatively unproductive, charging exorbitant rates, and leaching off of the poor, it is also a fact that it is relatively easy to become an attorney in US With a ridiculously high bar passage rate, its not too elite-exclusive. In other countries the lawyers ARE elites. In US their prestige is relatively weak.

This is true of doctors too. Doctors are elites. They leach off the poor. So are CEOs and other high paying jobs. Look, the imperative that doctors and lawyers (the two professions that people think are special and that they are bound by extra moral duties) need to realize that there job is NOT that special. It's just a job. These jobs have a board and a strict rule of conduct but... they don't have a special moral duty that are unique to them. Just get your money, man!

Interesting post, but can you expand a bit?
Title: Re: From Homo Oeconomicus to Homo Sexualis
Post by: appropriate on December 02, 2011, 10:59:29 PM

There is nothing wrong with making money. But money can become the tail that wags the dog. Karl Llewellyn's observations of some 40 years ago, on lawyers and money, still ring true. He observed "a brand of lawyer for whom law is making of a livelihood, a competence, a fortune. Law offers means to live, to get ahead. It is so viewed. Such men give their whole selves to it, in this aspect. Coin is their reward. Coin makes it possible to live. Coin is success, coin is prestige, and coin is power. Such lawyers, I take it, reflect rather adequately the standards of our civilization. They have perceived the mainspring of a money economy. They follow single-heartedly on their perception. Coin is, in this society, the measure of a man."


Freud argued that feces, as matter that comes from within oneself and then becomes matter outside and thus independent Of oneself, is recognized by the child as his "creation." In this recognition, the child frequently uses feces for love, offering it up as a gift to those for whom he cares. As something which he makes and which becomes his own (and is not bestowed on him externally), the child perceives of feces as personal property that defines independence. The child also recognizes that this substance, often problematically received by the world, can be used aggressively, as a weapon. Thus a child's sense of mastery, power, and defiance derives initially from manipulation of excrement.

Freud explained that as one evolves out of the stages of infant sexuality, the values attributed to feces are reattached through sublimation to other non-bodily objects. According to Freud, anal erotism moves from feces to money.

Freud elaborated the notion that the emergence of money economy is rooted in the "anal" phase of sexuality. The child's attitude toward excretion thus adumbrated its later attitude toward possessions. Since fecal matter was the first object created by the infant which could be alienated from it in exchange for others' praise, an anal retentive character prefigured excessive parsimony, an anal expulsive character excessive improvidence. Feces itself became the prototype for gold, a hypothesis Freud defended by referring to cross-linguistic data suggesting a connection between "filthy lucre" and precious metal.


Freud himself who was to declare to Fliess in a letter dated 16 January 1898, that money did not form the object of an infantile wish which is why, as the well-known saying puts it, money proves incapable of "making one happy" as an adult. Yet, it can nevertheless give the impression of doing so, to the extent that it is capable as we know from Freudian metapsychology of functioning as the unconscious substitute and equivalent for any "object" whatsoever that is invested by the libido of the subject, be this oral, phallic or, especially, anal. [...]

On a material level, faeces represent for children their first possessions of value. Indeed, if children tend at first, roughly between the ages of 2 and 3, to take an auto-erotic pleasure in defecating (the first phase of the anal stage), they subsequently discover, around the age of 3 or 4, that they can obtain a more intense excitation by holding back their stool (the second phase of the anal stage). This is the source of the pleasure adults take in holding onto money, valuable objects or, yet again, time (as shown by the character-traits of avarice and parsimony, as well as the pleasure of hoarding or saving), in accordance with the equation of money and excrement. [...]

[...] In the most extreme case, according to the psycho-analytical argument that is often put forward, an overly active or precocious repression of the child's psychosexual development during the anal stage -- especially at the moment of toilet training -- can lead to the development, in later life, of a veritable obsessional (or, as it was sometimes called, anal) neurosis. Since the pathbreaking work of Oskar Pfister on the psychical structure of classical capitalism and the financial mind, an entire current of thought (Reich, Fromm, etc.) has endeavored to locate within the capitalist system the indices of a collective obsessional neurotic syndrome. Just as the child is under the illusion of the omnipotence of his or her excrements, so the capitalist would tend to believe that his or her money gives him or her the power -- and, above all, the right -- to do whatever he or she so desires.


So basically,

money = * & ^ %
capitalism = anal


Wow - it's unbelievable how much you learn on these boards!
Title: Re: poor lawyers
Post by: a d m i n i s t r a t o r on December 03, 2011, 01:21:06 AM

^^^ That was a stupid article. All of the people he cited were women who took the age-old "drop out for kids/life balance" route. Also, his other argument is seemingly "being a lawyer sucks and doesn't let you be a talent agent or something cool." Yeah, I used to have dreams of being something cool when I was little, too.

I bet it's 10x harder to make a real living as a talent agent than as a lawyer, pal.

All of these people always complain about how "hard" and unfulfulling the law can be. I guess they'd be happier by default if they were broke and working in some stupid "creative industry." That doesn't apply to people with real jobs.

Being a truck driver is long, miserable work too. By the logic of this article, if truck drivers don't like it, they should just go into a field that's more "fun."

 ::)

Sorry, but I'm really sick of people bitching about the legal profession. We've all heard the gripes. If you are unhappy, leave. If you have doubts about working in the law, then don't become a lawyer. Lawyers who are unhappy should realize that most jobs blow and are soul-sucking. Since when did everyone fall under the illusion that we're all entitled to have super-fun jobs and work at the Googleplex?


@ # ! * you, Talk! Lawyers aren't supposed to have jobs that suck as much as truck drivers' and the like - what the h e l l are you talking about?!
Title: Re: From Homo Oeconomicus to Homo Sexualis
Post by: kaps on December 05, 2011, 02:43:12 AM

Freud himself who was to declare to Fliess in a letter dated 16 January 1898, that money did not form the object of an infantile wish which is why, as the well-known saying puts it, money proves incapable of "making one happy" as an adult. Yet, it can nevertheless give the impression of doing so, to the extent that it is capable as we know from Freudian metapsychology of functioning as the unconscious substitute and equivalent for any "object" whatsoever that is invested by the libido of the subject, be this oral, phallic or, especially, anal. [...]

On a material level, faeces represent for children their first possessions of value. Indeed, if children tend at first, roughly between the ages of 2 and 3, to take an auto-erotic pleasure in defecating (the first phase of the anal stage), they subsequently discover, around the age of 3 or 4, that they can obtain a more intense excitation by holding back their stool (the second phase of the anal stage). This is the source of the pleasure adults take in holding onto money, valuable objects or, yet again, time (as shown by the character-traits of avarice and parsimony, as well as the pleasure of hoarding or saving), in accordance with the equation of money and excrement. [...]

[...] In the most extreme case, according to the psycho-analytical argument that is often put forward, an overly active or precocious repression of the child's psychosexual development during the anal stage -- especially at the moment of toilet training -- can lead to the development, in later life, of a veritable obsessional (or, as it was sometimes called, anal) neurosis. Since the pathbreaking work of Oskar Pfister on the psychical structure of classical capitalism and the financial mind, an entire current of thought (Reich, Fromm, etc.) has endeavored to locate within the capitalist system the indices of a collective obsessional neurotic syndrome. Just as the child is under the illusion of the omnipotence of his or her excrements, so the capitalist would tend to believe that his or her money gives him or her the power -- and, above all, the right -- to do whatever he or she so desires.


So basically,

money = * & ^ %
capitalism = anal


Wow - it's unbelievable how much you learn on these boards!


For the sake of truth, there's more to the story, appropriate! When anality becomes a perversion in an individual it can result in a danger to that individual, and as a cultural phenomenon, to humanity. There is a clearly defined link between the anal-sadistic phase of sexuality and cruelty. An "instinct of cruelty" appears in Freud's "Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality," stating that there is an intimate connection between cruelty and the sexual instinct; whether active or passive, it also stems from the drive for mastery. Like mastery, cruelty involves the use of the object simply as a means of satisfaction. Sadism involves a pleasure derived from the object's suffering. The deriving of sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others.

After the introduction of the death drive in 1920, the drive for cruelty gave way to the "destructive drive," understood as an external deflection of the death drive and described as aggressive when directed at objects. If it is taken up by the ego, the ego itself becomes cruel or sadistic. The ego then risks not only losing the object's love but also being subjected to the reprimands of the Superego. This agency, which equates with moral conscience, can demonstrate an extreme cruelty, according to the need for aggression aroused by present/past frustrations. Rebellious by nature towards what is nevertheless the necessary process of civilization, the human being is always able to display a "cruel aggressiveness" if circumstances allow it.

Contempt, indifference towards the object, cruelty, as well as false emblems of masculinity, faceless bureaucracy, violence, torture, the jackboot and the whip. Freud described the psychosexual development of the child, how he progresses from the anal-sadistic phase to the phallic (genital) one, at the end of which the Oedipus complex finds resolution. It is the smashing/destruction, a developmental arrest at the anal-sadistic phase, as opposed to resolution of the Oedipus complex, that characterizes Western culture.