Is becoming a lawyer a mistake?

[TheFoo]

Originally Posted by crazyquik

While there are fewer attorneys at each small or medium-sized firm, their careers there are typically longer. People presume they make small or medium money, because their firms aren't on the AmLaw 100 list, aren't sponsoring event after event, and aren't giving away lots of free stuff to 23 year old law students at 2L OCI. But when you're talking about actual take-home pay, it's nothing to sneeze at.
In your estimation, what is the average take-home pay of lawyers starting at non-BigLaw firms, and what is the average over the lifetime of their careers? If $90k is the average income for all lawyers, I'd expect the first number is 30-50% below and the second number is about spot-on. While $90k/year may be nothing to sneeze at, I suspect it is far below what the average BigLaw lawyer makes per year over his legal career, whether or not he stays with a big firm. Even after only three or four years there, he can be pretty sure that his new job at a smaller firm will pay at least $100k. As opposed to what you say about corporate attorneys doing things like structured finance, they probably do better income-wise than their colleagues in litigation. A litigator exiting BigLaw can realistically expect that he'll move to a smaller firm or do government work. In contrast, corporate attorneys can additionally go in-house with a client or lateral to the business or finance side. Anyway, to a degree this is all moot. The point is that law as a whole is a poor path to pick for the sake of income. From either a doctor's or investment banker's perspective, $90k/year is something to sneeze at.

Originally Posted by Rambo

As the saying goes "those who can't do, teach" Education is rife with former lawyers.
Except, law professors--even at middling law schools--are generally the most academically accomplished alum from the top five law schools. It's arguably the sweetest, hardest gig to get in law.

Originally Posted by Radagast

I'm going to have to do some serious research on this. I'm in Canada and if the median salary is similar here, once I factor in the 3 years of lost income and tuition, going to law seems to be a bad financial choice.
Well, in the U.S., going to the average law school or going to a Top 14 law school will carve very different career paths. The $90k/year figure applies more to the former than the latter.

Originally Posted by ConcernedParent

I was being a bit facetious with my statement, but as a serious response; for us liberal arts majors there really isn't any other choice. Not all of us have the chutzpah to self employ ourselves or the desire to make 45k a year in HR or something. Picking a more lucrative major obviously would be nice, but unfortunately the 'soft' studies just happen in line with my interests and abilities.
Law isn't the only profession to pick. I could have gone to medical school or business school, for example. Also, I'd argue your college matters much more than your major with respect to many of the more lucrative career paths.

 

[Don Carlos]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

From either a doctor's or investment banker's perspective, $90k/year is something to sneeze at.
Medicine is not the cash cow it used to be. Most highly skilled doctors top out at around $200k/year by the early-middle to end of their professional lives. And that's after a metric shitload of years in school and in residency and in post-residency practice. Specialists can still make a gazillion dollars a year, but that marketplace is highly crowded, and you have to be damned good at what you do. It's not like i-banking, or even law, where a halfway competent hard worker can make decent scratch and a comfortable living. In medicine, you need to be a rockstar if you want to break into the rockstar pay scale. Add to this the fact that computerized record keeping and statistical analysis is putting ever more pressure on doctors to get results/outcomes. Trauma surgeons are being tracked like baseball players these days; their reputations mean little more than their batting averages. You'd better be sure you're a good hitter.

 

[Manton]

A rich lawyer is a tort lawyer. GCs at very big companies can also make seven figures.

 

[TheFoo]

Originally Posted by Arrogant Bastard

Medicine is not the cash cow it used to be. Most highly skilled doctors top out at around $200k/year by the early-middle to end of their professional lives. And that's after a metric shitload of years in school and in residency and in post-residency practice. Specialists can still make a gazillion dollars a year, but that marketplace is highly crowded, and you have to be damned good at what you do. It's not like i-banking, or even law, where a halfway competent hard worker can make decent scratch and a comfortable living. In medicine, you need to be a rockstar if you want to break into the rockstar pay scale. Add to this the fact that computerized record keeping and statistical analysis is putting ever more pressure on doctors to get results/outcomes. Trauma surgeons are being tracked like baseball players these days; their reputations mean little more than their batting averages. You'd better be sure you're a good hitter.
Even given all of the above, the median salary for doctors in the U.S. is $150k/year. At the 20th percentile mark, it's $100k/year. These are about 70% greater than the equivalent figures for lawyers. Yes, doctors gruel for many years through medical school and residency, but they can typically expect their lifestyles to dramatically improve going forward. At 40, your average doctor is not only making significantly more money than your average lawyer (by leaps), but is also getting home at 6 or 7 and not working weekends. The lawyers who make as much or more at that age tend to work like dogs.

Originally Posted by Manton

A rich lawyer is a tort lawyer. GCs at very big companies can also make seven figures.
To become a GC at a big company, you need to go the BigLaw path. Exceedingly few lawyers have that option.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by Magician

Would having hand tattoos keep me from becoming a lawyer?
No, although there presumably would be some small percentage of potential employers/clients who would be put off by them (and possibly a small percentage who might find them reassuring). But this would be true in any number of professions.

Originally Posted by taxgenius69

As a Magician, can't you make em disappear?

Well-played, sir.

 

[Manton]

Seems like the % would be less than small. Not that I know anything, but the % of visible tatoos on the general population has risen exponentially in my lifetime but they are still close to non-existent in my bourgeoise work/live/play bubble.

 

[Don Carlos]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

To become a GC at a big company, you need to go the BigLaw path. Exceedingly few lawyers have that option.
Not only that, but you pretty much have to be a big-time partner at a BigLaw firm before GC at a major corporation is even remotely a possibility, right? At least that's what I'd always understood. It's been my understanding that GCs are usually partners from big firms hired by big companies during litigation; after being suitably impressed with the lawyers, the big company poaches one of them for GC. All this being said, GC is more or less a C-level position at big companies. It's definitely not an expected outcome for 99% of lawyers in the world, just as CEO is not an expected outcome for 99% of corporate workers in the world. It's not as if you have young lawyers, a handful of years out of law school, rushing off to make seven figures as GC of Fortune 500 firms.

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Just know this: the divorce rate amongst lawyers is the highest amongst all professions. I would shoot myself in the face before marrying a partner at a big firm.

Sort of what LD said. Lawyers are trained to solve problems by litigation. It makes sense that if a marriage has a problem the answer is to litigate. I think I've related the story a very well respected builder of custom homes told me. He says attorneys either have a problem finding a top tier builder or they get charged about double. The reason is they kept suing their builders and now have this reputation as being problem clients.

 

[Don Carlos]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Sort of what LD said. Lawyers are trained to solve problems by litigation. It makes sense that if a marriage has a problem the answer is to litigate. I think I've related the story a very well respected builder of custom homes told me. He says attorneys either have a problem finding a top tier builder or they get charged about double. The reason is they kept suing their builders and now have this reputation as being problem clients.

When all you've got is a hammer...

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by Arrogant Bastard

When all you've got is a hammer...

Yup. I wish you could put a big fat "REJECT" on any patient that starts off with either, "Well, I'm a lawyer and..." or "My son is a lawyer..."

If I'm dealing with someone like that, my stock answer is, "I just want you to know, that even though you are a lawyer, we will not discriminate against you." Usually slows them down and off topic.

 

[IUtoSLU]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Sort of what LD said. Lawyers are trained to solve problems by litigation. It makes sense that if a marriage has a problem the answer is to litigate. I think I've related the story a very well respected builder of custom homes told me. He says attorneys either have a problem finding a top tier builder or they get charged about double. The reason is they kept suing their builders and now have this reputation as being problem clients.

The bolded is not really true. In fact, most people who practice law do not try cases. Your perspective is skewed by your industry. In financial services, for example, litigation is rarely used as a solution to a problem.

 

[ConcernedParent]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Law isn't the only profession to pick. I could have gone to medical school or business school, for example. Also, I'd argue your college matters much more than your major with respect to many of the more lucrative career paths.

True, but I would assume becoming a competitive applicant for med school is about as rigorous and difficult as becoming one for a t14 law school. And after you get out there is an absurd the amount of residency work you do for peanuts; whereas getting out of a t14 you can start making it rain right out (or relatively making it rain

). For bschool, it's kind of a catch 22 isn't it? You need business experience, but there are just waaaay too many BA, Econ, Biz Econ, etc... kids out there with good gpa and good resumes.

This is only my assumption, I'm young and don't know ****, you clearly do.

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by IUtoSLU

The bolded is not really true. In fact, most people who practice law do not try cases. Your perspective is skewed by your industry. In financial services, for example, litigation is rarely used as a solution to a problem.

Does the fact you do not try cases mean that in law school you were not trained to think in terms of litigation as how to solve legal issues? I will admit to being skewed due to work experience but I do not think I am entirely wrong here.

 

[TheFoo]

Originally Posted by Arrogant Bastard

Not only that, but you pretty much have to be a big-time partner at a BigLaw firm before GC at a major corporation is even remotely a possibility, right? At least that's what I'd always understood. It's been my understanding that GCs are usually partners from big firms hired by big companies during litigation; after being suitably impressed with the lawyers, the big company poaches one of them for GC.
I think GCs typically come from a corporate/transactional background, not litigation. But you're right that it's an exceptional position and extremely difficult to get. You can lateral in as a partner from a big firm, or you can move up to it from a lower in-house position.

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Lawyers are trained to solve problems by litigation. It makes sense that if a marriage has a problem the answer is to litigate.
I don't think this is it. Contrary to popular perception, lawyers are not always looking to pick fights. In corporate and transactional areas, the purpose is to make things go as smoothly as possible and avoid litigation. Even litigators, for the most part, try to avoid fights and then fight the smallest ones possible. It's more likely that divorce rates are so high because of the stress and time demanded by the profession. If you marry a doctor starting out, you know the hell will end when he or she is finished with residency--as hellish a hell as it is. If you marry a go-getting lawyer, things just get worse and worse. There's no better time to look forward to. This is what I've witnessed growing up amongst friends whose parents were all lawyers, doctors, or engineers, as well as what I've seen in the legal workplace as an adult.

Originally Posted by IUtoSLU

The bolded is not really true. In fact, most people who practice law do not try cases. Your perspective is skewed by your industry. In financial services, for example, litigation is rarely used as a solution to a problem.
+1

Originally Posted by ConcernedParent

True, but I would assume becoming a competitive applicant for med school is about as rigorous and difficult as becoming one for a t14 law school. And after you get out there is an absurd the amount of residency work you do for peanuts; whereas getting out of a t14 you can start making it rain right out (or relatively making it rain

). For bschool, it's kind of a catch 22 isn't it? You need business experience, but there are just waaaay too many BA, Econ, Biz Econ, etc... kids out there with good gpa and good resumes
I think it's harder to get into medical school than law school across the board, whether it's a top school or a middling one. Hell, anyone can go to law school. The same can't be said of medical school. Residency sucks, but after you pay your dues things get much, much better and easier. Medicine makes a lot more fiscal sense as a lifelong profession to me than lawyering. From a money perspective, law only looks better when you think extremely short-term and assume optimal outcomes that are very unlikely.

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Does the fact you do not try cases mean that in law school you were not trained to think in terms of litigation as how to solve legal issues? I will admit to being skewed due to work experience but I do not think I am entirely wrong here.
I'm a little confused by your question. Litigation isn't so much a solution as it is part of a larger legal process. First, a deal is made, whether it be a social one expressed by custom or a written rule (like how we all agree not to punch strangers in the face) or a literal one where cash is exchanged and a contract drawn up. If the deal works out and everyone's happy, end of story. If it doesn't--maybe someone feels slighted or has changed his mind, maybe conditions have changed and the deal becomes unworkable--litigation kicks in. Then, the judicial process is relied upon to fill in the gaps left by the dead or questioned deal. At every point in the process, lawyers play a role and legal issues arise that must be solved.

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

I'm a little confused by your question. Litigation isn't so much a solution as it is part of a larger legal process. First, a deal is made, whether it be a social one expressed by custom or a written rule (like how we all agree not to punch strangers in the face) or a literal one where cash is exchanged and a contract drawn up. If the deal works out and everyone's happy, end of story. If it doesn't--maybe someone feels slighted or has changed his mind, maybe conditions have changed and the deal becomes unworkable--litigation kicks in. Then, the judicial process is relied upon to fill in the gaps left by the dead or questioned deal.

At every point in the process, lawyers play a role and legal issues arise that must be solved.

Right. Litigation is a tool, a big tool, in the way lawyers are taught to problem solve. When you deal with an attorney, when an attorney is the customer in some fashion, if he/she doesn't get their way you get threats of litigation. Every. Single. Time.

I'm sorry, but 99% of you ruin it for all the other lawyers.