Is becoming a lawyer a mistake?

[v.freeman]

Originally Posted by Arrogant Bastard

Incidentally, I think we're missing a very sad and under-looked side story here, which is that pretty much any non-law, non-finance, non-medical career choice these days is destined to place you so far behind the curve that it's not even funny. My MBA classmates who went into industry are now 30 and making $100-$150k in corporate gigs, plus a 5-10% bonus if they're lucky. And that's just the ones who could find jobs in this economy, and who didn't get laid off in the last few years. I shudder to think how non-graduate-credentialed corporate employees are faring.

Corporate white collar is the new blue collar.

It's definitely a problem when the most motivated/hardest working students keep running towards law/finance just because the payscale blows everything else out of the water, but it's not like it doesn't come without sacrifices. Those corporate development jobs have much better hours despite the ****** pay and $100k goes a lot further in Minneapolis than it does in New York City.

 

[ConcernedParent]

Originally Posted by Arrogant Bastard

I would have to disagree with that. Partially it's a self-selecting thing. A lot of BigLaw associates actually wanted to be lawyers. Sure, some of them are there because they felt pressure to do it. But many are there because law was what they wanted to do. Not so for many, and I'd even venture to say most, entry-level bankers. They're there simply because they heard the money is insane, and they have no idea if they'll actually like the work or the lifestyle. Most end up loathing it. Even the greediest, most dyed-in-the-wool materialists end up burning out when they realize that compensation can't be the sole factor behind a career choice. Consequently, the attrition rate is brutal. If BigLaw turnover is measured in years, it's not uncommon for baking turnover to be measured in months.

Incidentally, I think we're missing a very sad and under-looked side story here, which is that pretty much any non-law, non-finance, non-medical career choice these days is destined to place you so far behind the curve that it's not even funny. My MBA classmates who went into industry are now 30 and making $100-$150k in corporate gigs, plus a 5-10% bonus if they're lucky. And that's just the ones who could find jobs in this economy, and who didn't get laid off in the last few years. I shudder to think how non-graduate-credentialed corporate employees are faring.

Corporate white collar is the new blue collar.

Thanks, I'm looking forward to working.

 

[Don Carlos]

Originally Posted by ConcernedParent

Thanks, I'm looking forward to working.

LOL, sorry. Didn't mean to depress you. But it's kind of true.

 

[Sunnydale]

Professor Walter Russell Mead had an interesting blog article for his new students concerning the changing education landscape and jobs market. It's a good read, I thought.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.c...ack-to-school/

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Look, this isn't really up for interpretation. Perhaps you mean something radically different by the word, but litigation is not a "tool" in that it's rarely a choice where another approach would work. You don't wonder about a legal problem and then say: "A-ha! The solution is to litigate!" It happens precisely because there are no other options at the point when it comes into play.
And this is why it's a tool. Also, I find the bolded specious. I have been involved in several cases where mediation was refused and litigation was the preferred method of the med-mal scum. There was nothing one party wanted more than mediation and it was refused. Further, legislators and trial attorneys are attempting to get arbitration contracts made illegal, at the federal level. As it stands, it's hard to get an arbitration clause to work, i.e. need back out period and can't be a "contract of adhesion," but they will stand up if done right. No, the med-mal guys what that tool removed and replaced solely with the tool of litigation. What you are saying is really not true. Certain lawyers do not want anything other than litigation. I SMELL 20 PAGES WITH

!!!

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by v.freeman

It's definitely a problem when the most motivated/hardest working students keep running towards law/finance just because the payscale blows everything else out of the water, but it's not like it doesn't come without sacrifices. Those corporate development jobs have much better hours despite the ****** pay and $100k goes a lot further in Minneapolis than it does in New York City.

Well, then take comfort that it doesn't happen "just because" of the perceived payscale.

 

[IUtoSLU]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Certain lawyers do not want anything other than litigation.

I can agree with this. let's just add that the industry in question is what makes the difference. Mediation is almost always a formality and arbitration is pretty much a form of litigation. I think everyone can agree that med-mal lawyers are bloodthirsty vampires who drive up the price of medical care.

 

[Rambo]

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.[\\quote]

I wasn't even aiming that high. High and middle schools are stocked with law dropouts. Hell, some even venture into elementary. Many that I've spoken with don't even love teaching all that much. They're in it for the comparatively short hours and excellent vacations.

 

[Radagast]

..

 

[crazyquik]

Originally Posted by IUtoSLU

I can agree with this. let's just add that the industry in question is what makes the difference. Mediation is almost always a formality and arbitration is pretty much a form of litigation. I think everyone can agree that med-mal lawyers are bloodthirsty vampires who drive up the price of medical care.
That knife cuts both ways. If doctors would quit leaving sponges in patients, cutting off the wrong limbs, overdosing infants on blood thinner, and then denying it all, over and over and over, litigation wouldn't be necessary. But I guess when a patient is rendered a ventilator-dependent quadriplegic, it's no big deal.

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by crazyquik

That knife cuts both ways.

If doctors would quit leaving sponges in patients, cutting off the wrong limbs, overdosing infants on blood thinner, and then denying it all, over and over and over, litigation wouldn't be necessary.

Maybe if they were not so worried about litigation, they would act differently? In fact, I do believe some "groundbreaking" thing got passed where a physician can now offer a patient an apology for a negative outcome and not have it used against him/her in court.

Also, you think this doesn't happen elsewhere in the world? They seem to get by without US style litigation. It's like I keep asking people, why do you want Canadian style medicine yet retain US style med-mal?

 

[Don Carlos]

I am very pro-doctor, both because I rocked it out in bio and orgo in HS and undergrad, and because I plan to marry a big-titted blonde doctor chick someday.

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by Arrogant Bastard

I am very pro-doctor, both because I rocked it out in bio and orgo in HS and undergrad, and because I plan to marry a big-titted blonde doctor chick someday.

I'm a strong supporter of doctors as, when you get sick, they try to heal you. Rat bastards.

 

[Huntsman]

Originally Posted by crazyquik

That knife cuts both ways. If doctors would quit leaving sponges in patients, cutting off the wrong limbs, overdosing infants on blood thinner, and then denying it all, over and over and over, litigation wouldn't be necessary. But I guess when a patient is rendered a ventilator-dependent quadriplegic, it's no big deal.
Thing is, the knife may cut this way many times, but often people use the law and lawyers as a sword with very little righteousness in it. I'd be willing to be that is most of the med-mal cases, and indeed, a large proportion of suits. The Law can be a club that people may swing not merely at human injustices, but also at the unfairness of life. Life is unfair. It isn't always someone's fault. But of course someone must pay. That's what lawyers are for, right? (he says, aping a perverted, but all-too-common viewpoint). ~ H

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

Thing is, the knife may cut this way many times, but often people use the law and lawyers as a sword with very little righteousness in it. I'd be willing to be that is most of the med-mal cases, and indeed, a large proportion of suits. The Law can be a club that people may swing not merely at human injustices, but also at the unfairness of life. Life is unfair. It isn't always someone's fault.

But of course someone must pay. That's what lawyers are for, right? (he says, aping a perverted, but all-too-common viewpoint).

~ H

This is a big part of it. Someone must pay. Not, "Someone is at fault," just someone must pay. Life is unfair and too many people see a negative medical outcome as a winning lottery ticket.