Going To Law School

nearly everyone i knew in law school (class of 2011, tier 2, nyc market) have attorney gigs, or something related like senior claims analysts, legal coordinators, etc. so it's not like you'll graduate straight into a ditch or something. if you are paying full tuition, make sure this something you'll be able to tolerate, usual advice, etc. etc.

specialize or distinguish urself somehow in ERISA or medicare/medicaid stuff 4 the future and youll nvr be outta work

but then again that stuff is largely horrible

nearly everyone i knew in law school (class of 2011, tier 2, nyc market) have attorney gigs, or something related like senior claims analysts, legal coordinators, etc. so it's not like you'll graduate straight into a ditch or something. if you are paying full tuition, make sure this something you'll be able to tolerate, usual advice, etc. etc.

― Spectrum, Friday, February 1, 2013 11:53 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is true for me too, but a lot of the jobs are pretty low-paying for someone trying to service six-figure debt (30-60k/year range). "Something you'll be able to tolerate" = have a plan for the early years, being able to live at home if needed, etc. If you can stick those years out and you're any good you can build a career. A huge number of people just leave the law market altogether, even those who find employment.

As far as iatee's post, the law market doesn't exactly work like that. People who graduate in 2016 won't be competing with people who graduated in 2012 for jobs, all of whom will either be mid-level assocaites by then or will have left the market. I mean in some sense money is money and hiring is hiring, but you're not competing for the same jobs.

As far as "specializing" in something, I don't agree with this advice. Specialization in law school is often worthless, and many people find themselves in areas of law that they never expected to be in. You learn on the job. Instead, take a broad range of substantive courses (don't overload on fluffy seminars) so you have a broad base of basic knowledge.

E.g. I tried to "specialize" in IP, but when a job opp fell through at the last minute I wound up wrangling myself a job in a totally unrelated field. Luckily I had at least taken a couple of basic courses in it, but my job has been a real crash course.

well I'm talking about more about how the national supply/demand mismatch for 'legal work' isn't necessarily going to have worked itself out by 2016 - if anything it's likely to be worse. that is different from the supply/demand mismatch for entry level associate jobs but it's not unrelated.

As far as "specializing" in something, I don't agree with this advice. Specialization in law school is often worthless, and many people find themselves in areas of law that they never expected to be in. You learn on the job. Instead, take a broad range of substantive courses (don't overload on fluffy seminars) so you have a broad base of basic knowledge.

― space phwoar (Hurting 2), Friday, February 1, 2013 11:14 AM (35 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is my mindset right now. my *dream* is to work in the doj, but i know i might have to fall back from that and i might not get to choose where. i am going to a top school, and the LRAP is still the shit, but it's hard not to be a handwringing pussy about it when everything you hear is "SINKING SHIP, INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE"

"People who graduate in 2016 won't be competing with people who graduated in 2012 for jobs, all of whom will either be mid-level assocaites by then or will have left the market."

By 2016, the label "mid-level associate" will be meaningless. The large firms that treat significantly smaller classes of associates much much worse in terms of job security, workload, and compensation will be the ones that survive.

Also specializing has very, very little to do with the classes you choose if you aren't at a top tier school, and much more to do with the summer internships you fight for (and are willing to be not well-paid at).

I don't look forward to Hurting's inevitable "I didn't make partner, but it's ok" posts in a couple years.

You looked forward to his "rude awakening in the next 24 months" in July 2010.

Yup. Keep reading.

Wait, he didn't have a job for 13 days after graduation. Was that the rude awakening?

the rude awakening is now he looks in the mirror and sees a lawyer

specialize or distinguish urself somehow in ERISA or medicare/medicaid stuff 4 the future and youll nvr be outta work

― johnny crunch, Friday, February 1, 2013 4:55 PM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

but then again that stuff is largely horrible

― johnny crunch, Friday, February 1, 2013 4:56 PM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I do ERISA litigation and god help me, but I like it.

haha cool i dont really know anything abt it btw

the rude awakening is now he looks in the mirror and sees a lawyer

― iatee, Friday, February 1, 2013 5:33 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol

If you "read on" you actually see that things didn't work out so badly for me. I'm in a smaller firm at a good salary, my work is relatively interesting, and I get to see my family. And staying on in my firm and making partner is actually not so crazy -- not like the 1/7 or 1/10 or whatever shot you have in biglaw.

My work also sometimes involves ERISA sometimes, although it doesn't require me to be steeped in the arcana of the statutory scheme.

Yeah, me neither. My area is employee benefits litigation so it's pretty straight forward (except when it's a total mess, but that's kind of fun, too).

I work in biglaw but as a staff attorney (so not partner track) which is pretty sweet. I get the perks of biglaw (well, aside from the huge salary) without the pressure.

i do a lot of freelance "litigation support" for biglaw, and yeah afaict staff attys know what's up

If you know why you are going, have a specific sub-specialty in mind, and plan on hanging out your own shingle or have a good network away from large law firms, you should feel great. Otherwise, you should feel like a sucker now and avoid the rush in three years.

wish i had this advice when i started.

een, i highly recommend you check out this article. it's one i wish i had read before choosing to take the plunge. the social mobility bit about the vague aspirational middle class law school hopes really hit home for me.

http://duncankennedy.net/documents/Legal%20Education%20as%20Training%20for%20Hierarchy_Politics%20of%20Law.pdf

for some context i'm at law school in canada, but am in a similar situation to spectrum's. dealt with a lot of depression type stuff last year, plus the whole realization of "i have no idea why i'm here in the first place." so i'm deferring my 3rd year until september just to kind of get my depression settled down and figure my life out a bit. it's going pretty ok so far; the funny thing is that the people who like the idea most are lawyers =_=

still not entirely sure of what's gonna be in store for me when i return. not sure if i wanna practice or not i guess. i kinda find the majority of my colleagues hideous and depressing (although a select few are truly wonderful). i think i might be able to get myself back in gear school-wise and look for work. right now i'm thinking that i could just be selective and not spring for a law job immediately after graduation. just take my time to find a firm where i actually like the people. i'm blessed with having kind middle-class parents who used like all their money to fund my (cheap) canadian legal education, so i'm not in debt.

is there such thing as a low-stress (relatively speaking) law job? does that exist in family law? i'm thinking it might be nice to shoot for family law mediation. there's new legislation in my province that basically funnels every family court case to mediation, so i imagine there'll be lots of opportunities there. it also seems like an ~~existentially rewarding~~ career path, fwiw (which is a lot to me).

one of the big worries i have is that even in family law mediation, you're still subject to a lot of the agonies and horrors of family law in general. anyone know anything about this? i'm wondering if me, a sensitive individual, would be able to handle it. i left largely cuz of stress (shocker) and i found that despite being really quite good at trial advocacy, i might have had a hard time dealing with the adrenaline-rush cutthroat nature of it all. it kinda sucks that my greatest lawyer strength is the thing that seemingly gave me the biggest headache, but eh. hopefully a door opens as that window closes, ya know.

this ended up being a minor soliliquy i see. whoops

even anxious, non-confrontational introverts can learn to (sometimes) love and be good at the cutthroat stuff. i can't see anything in family law being low stress but i don't know about mediation. would they want you to have experience outside of mediation first? it's probably hard to select that specifically in the beginning when you're just looking for any opportunity.

i swing between loving and hating my publ1c d3f3nd3r job so wildly and often think i could enjoy something more dry and regulatory but i'm moving up the ladder pretty fast here and want loan forgiveness so i'm not gonna leave anytime soon

ilxmailed u een

yeah, in my province you have to work at a firm for 3 years before you can get certified as a family law mediator

and i dunno. i had a very hard time learning to love the cutthroat stuff, although i did get reasonably decent at it. i came like SO close to actually loving it - or, uh, convincing myself i loved it. i have a beastmode trigger deep down that seems to go off when i'm in high pressure situations like trials. but, like... i hate that beastmode trigger, and i hate how it turns me into a ravenous adrenaline junkie. so yeah... here i am thinking about mediation. ok then

i did some regulatory law work for the ag's in my state ... i don't think there's a more boring area of law out there. it's like living inside the head of humphrey from yes minister. i did get to do some pretty cool corruption stuff, and i think i unknowingly assisted in some of it, but that probably comes with the territory... there was def an interesting vibe going on there.

fennel, if you're sensitive then i'd imagine you'd have to learn how to get a thicker skin or learn to be able to let go if you're going to be working in an emotionally-charged area like family law. i did some criminal law with a family flavor at the PDs office during law school and it was downright depressing sometimes. even when i was proud of myself for doing a good job, it was like "was I really right to do that?" like getting some deadbeat dad/serial wife beater a lighter than expected probation, I felt gross about it. conflict is pretty much the job of an advocate, both b/t the parties, and sometimes your own personal morals, and you're thrust into the middle of some of the darkest moments in peoples' lives. it's not an easy job, at least in my opinion.

oh yeah, various xposts

it takes at least a year to start feeling like the adversarial stuff is bothering you less. it's hard but it's always there so you just grow into it. interesting subject matter and stories and always something very absurd to laugh at is what keeps me going. i never, ever feel gross or guilty about helping someone who did something shitty, no matter how shitty it is. really. oddly i'm not sure how i'd feel about representing union-busting corporations or polluters. part of it is i never feel like the state is doing the right thing either, i guess. that's not all of it though. i don't think i get the existentially rewarding effect from anything, but i do get excited about people who do bad stuff. they're just interesting. you don't have to like what they do.

yeah, not everyone's made for it. i do understand some of that appeal, though ... everyday going into the office was like the intro montage to one of those old cop shows. crazy homeless people spinning around in the streets holding up traffic, drug deals in broad daylight, prostitutes hanging out on the corner, people playing dice on the wall of police station. it had this kind-of thrilling anarchy to it, but i couldn't stop thinking about the people involved when i actually argued matters... took away from some of the street justice/maury povich appeal.

turning point for me was when my supervisor was representing this guy who chopped up his wife and kids and threw 'em out in garbage bags like it was garbage day. being face to face with that guy made me want to throw up.

I'm p-side and I do a lot of investor litigation, so I never have to feel too bad about who or what I'm representing. At worst I might be working on a meh case that will do no one any significant harm, at best I'm helping a municipal pension fund recover from investment fraud or helping individuals recover retirement savings. I guess since it's all more financial and abstract I also don't have to see the ugliest sides of humanity, although the downside is that it can feel very detached.

Hope dayo dissuades anyone from going to lawl school praise Jesus

law_school_slayer

http://duncankennedy.net/documents/Legal%20Education%20as%20Training%20for%20Hierarchy_Politics%20of%20Law.pdf

This is really good

buzza! ;-)

hey, how's ls going anyway?

family law is as close to hell on earth as a person can get. plus family law clients don't like paying their bills. i don't know why anyone in their right mind would concentrate on that area if they have other options.

estate litigation can get just as nasty as family law, but usually at least you know there's some money there to make it all worthwhile.

fennel, what prov are you in? I always forget there are more Canadians on ILX than I remember.

Stuck in the final 24 hours of a factum for my Supreme Court advocacy class which was supposed to be fascinating and awesome and mostly is except group work is the worst and trying to write a 35ish page factum with four people is actually probably way more difficult/tedious than just doing it yourself. And thus. I'm resigning myself to not fiddle too much with the sections I didn't write and won't be arguing, esp because the class is Pass/Fail but it is taking substantial amounts of restraint sometimes.

Gonna slip blissfully in the mindless detail work of citations after scarfing down dinner and hope that helps destress.

hey alex, i'm in BC. vancouver to be exact. i assume you're at mcgill? what are you looking at after school?

had a nice conversation with one of my two real friends at law school. was a little reassuring. seems like something i might be able to ease back into. needs some thinking in the meantime.

i understand family law proper is hellish. but i wonder if family law mediation would be fundamentally different than family law. i wouldn't even have to practice family law 3 years to be a certified mediator in BC; it can be any area of law and then just a few accreditation courses.

Just need to randomly bitch about some litigation bullshit that is getting to me -- people I'm working with on a brief keep doing two really annoying things: (1) making what I'd call "gotcha" arguments, like "Defendants don't address x, therefore they acknowledge that our arguments on that point are correct" (so obviously not true! do you really think the court will fall for this?) and (2) neurotically addressing every single nitpicky point the other side raises. Sometimes you can just let a bad micro-argument go and trust the court to see it.

hoo boy, me no big lawyer no more, but i vaguely remember in one of my litigation classes you concede a point by omitting it in your answer when it's addressed in the plaintiff's complaint, which is really just supremely lazy since all you need is a one-sentence form answer to keep it alive ... is that what they're doing??

but it's a motion to dismiss, not an answer

you definitely do not concede a point by omiting an arugment on it from your motion to dismiss - you can file a motion to dismiss that addresses only one point and still preserve all other arguments

ok, i'm not even sure why they'd be bringing that up in the first place.

how do you like being a practicing attorney? i've been tossing the idea around of jumping back into it.

It's alright. I like being p-side, some of my work is interesting, and my firm is relatively humane with hours for a nyc firm. I'm still less happy than I was working in my bottom-of-the-barrel newspaper reporting job but that job wouldn't have supported a family. I get the feeling there are a lot of happier jobs than mine.

I think what I hate most about lawyering is (1) you are stuck in an office for many hours staring at a computer screen, which sucks to an extent no matter what you're doing and (2) you have to dervote enormous attention to boring details, which combines with the stress of all the consequences that follow if you fuck up those boring details.

(1) making what I'd call "gotcha" arguments, like "Defendants don't address x, therefore they acknowledge that our arguments on that point are correct" (so obviously not true! do you really think the court will fall for this?)

How common is an explicit "lol do you really think the court will fall for this?" in responses to such arguments? I've seen a lot of subtle working-the-refs-without-seeming-to on a legal blog I follow, and wondered if any of it blows up into actual "you gotta be fucking kidding me and kidding the judge too."

ppl who know what they are doing should strive not to do it. not professional and betrays insecurity imo. just write the argument. a couple days ago i found an opinion somewhere where the judges called out one of the parties for snarky tone.

er, insecurity betrays u? what i'm i trying to say? i'm so tired.

one of my major goals in life is to never go to law school. so far so good.

i think being a lawyer is cool for people who want to do it, but too many people like me -- who don't want to be lawyers -- seem to get sucked into it. i don't want to be one of those people.