Law School Discussion

"On Being a Happy, Healthy and Ethical Mbr of an Unhappy, Unhealthy and Unethi..

OP,

I find it funny how quickly this article is brushed aside and its implications ignored. I found the article via a link some time ago and ended up reading it in its entirety. It is an important read for anyone considering biglaw.

Cruella's point about the average age of entering law students is absolutely irrelevant. The point Stiltz makes is that biglaw lawyers are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their jobs and lives.

If Lenny were an LSAT question I'd point out the flaw in his post: ad hominem attack. He does not address any claims made in the article.

Finally,

Quote
Not interested in reading it.  Who is he?  Why should I give that author the power to effect my decisions, and my future.

Is this poster really going to become a lawyer??

The author worked biglaw and subsequently worked as a legal academic; he has a wide-ranging legal career and he writes about his experience in biglaw, which, incidentally, happens to be the experience that many others suffer.

Average age has a lot to do with it, because younger students are much more likely to go into law for the wrong reasons without actually having a clue what they are getting into. People who go in at a later age have already figured out what they are looking for in a job and are more likely to avoid putting themselves into situations where they'll be miserable. They already know whether they're going to be able to handle 70-80-hour weeks and probably have more perspective in terms of what it's like to live on a median American salary.

Plus, if the guy hasn't really worked in any other fields but law, then he really doesn't have a very good argument. If you're in a field where it's easier to leave, chances are you're going to bail when you start hating it. Having spent time as a teacher, most of the data there was more concrete- 50% of new teachers leave within 5 years. Imagine if all those people stayed and they were surveyed? I'd bet they'd be unhappy too. Some of my friends did have health problems from stress because of how much they hated their jobs.

DDBY

  • ****
  • 520
    • View Profile

Finally,

Quote
Not interested in reading it.  Who is he?  Why should I give that author the power to effect my decisions, and my future.

Is this poster really going to become a lawyer??

The author worked biglaw and subsequently worked as a legal academic; he has a wide-ranging legal career and he writes about his experience in biglaw, which, incidentally, happens to be the experience that many others suffer.
You missed the point of the post.  A biglaw history, and legal acedemic status are not enough to convince me that the writer knows what he is talking about.  There are alot of idiot lawyers with a similar resume. about 40,000 new ones graduate every year.  The point is that you cannot blindly allow someone elses experience determine your course of action.  I'm not going to deliberately read an atricle that is trying to convince me against a path I have already chosen, and have determined is right for me.  I make my own future not that guy, and not the statistics ::) he managed to conjure up and manipulate to fit his asessment. 8)

   

nealric

  • ****
  • 2248
  • a.k.a. Miguel Sanchez
    • View Profile
Quote
Hopefully like his mentor, Scalia.

You mean a self righteous pinhead?

As far as the article goes...
I think it makes some very good points and some not so good points. One thing that has changed quite a bit is debt to salary ratio. Unless you do biglaw, 150+k in debt really is untenable. He dismisses the debt issue, but cites figures of less than half of what students are under today.

DDBY

  • ****
  • 520
    • View Profile
Another question is what is this writers motivation.  Why does he feel the need to convince hundreds, or thousands, of potential lawyers to stay out of private practice.  What does he get out of this? 


I would think someone who wants to be a lawyer would ask questions about motive.

In my opinion his motives are crystal clear.

1) To advise aspiring lawyers/his students that money isn't everything (ergo, to enter practice with other reasons than money);
3) to show in great detail what Big Law firms are like or at least give an idea of it (which someone who hasn't worked in one wouldn't know);
3) and to advise out of his personal experience and empirical data that there are ways to practice law "happily, healthily and ethically."

I personally think the article is a detailed advice on the universal and conventional wisdom that money doesn't equal happiness. So if you choose to ignore/criticize it, it's really your choice. No need to be bitter about somebody's good intentions.

Oh, and Lenny, since when was spending six years of Associate and two years of Partner (which, as you should know, means you were a stellar Associate and is extremely hard to become in a Big Law firm) "not long"?

Quote
Hopefully like his mentor, Scalia.

You mean a self righteous pinhead?

As far as the article goes...
I think it makes some very good points and some not so good points. One thing that has changed quite a bit is debt to salary ratio. Unless you do biglaw, 150+k in debt really is untenable. He dismisses the debt issue, but cites figures of less than half of what students are under today.

It's not true that $150K+ is untenable unless you do biglaw. The median American salary is <$50K and one can easily pay back their debt on a lesser salary than biglaw and still end up with $50K to take home.

DDBY

  • ****
  • 520
    • View Profile
Quote
Hopefully like his mentor, Scalia.

You mean a self righteous pinhead?

As far as the article goes...
I think it makes some very good points and some not so good points. One thing that has changed quite a bit is debt to salary ratio. Unless you do biglaw, 150+k in debt really is untenable. He dismisses the debt issue, but cites figures of less than half of what students are under today.

It's not true that $150K+ is untenable unless you do biglaw. The median American salary is <$50K and one can easily pay back their debt on a lesser salary than biglaw and still end up with $50K to take home.
I agree.

Lenny

  • ****
  • 455
    • View Profile

Oh, and Lenny, since when was spending six years of Associate and two years of Partner (which, as you should know, means you were a stellar Associate and is extremely hard to become in a Big Law firm) "not long"?

Touche.  I stand corrected re: his experience.  I stand by my admittedly ad hominem attacks on Schiltz, especially the point of him being self-righteous. 

vap

  • ****
  • 1307
  • Attorney
    • View Profile
Quote
Hopefully like his mentor, Scalia.

You mean a self righteous pinhead?

As far as the article goes...
I think it makes some very good points and some not so good points. One thing that has changed quite a bit is debt to salary ratio. Unless you do biglaw, 150+k in debt really is untenable. He dismisses the debt issue, but cites figures of less than half of what students are under today.

It's not true that $150K+ is untenable unless you do biglaw. The median American salary is <$50K and one can easily pay back their debt on a lesser salary than biglaw and still end up with $50K to take home.

What less-than-biglaw salary are you suggesting would allow you to have $50K after your loan payments, and in what market/location do you expect to have this $50K post-loans income?