law school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a lawyer and no have no idea if my college freshman will want to become a lawyer, but isn't this similar to what any graduate can expect when seeking a job? Some will immediately become gainfully employed, while it may take longer for others. Those who graduate from elite schools may have their first choice of jobs, while those who graduates from a school ranked 500 may take longer to find their place.

Either way, the likelihood is that no recent graduate, and I'd include those from undergrad and graduate schools, is going to remain in their first job for a long time. More likely, they'll bounce around from job to job during their 20s until they find something that sticks for them. So, why does it matter so much where you go to school unless you're aiming for a very niche career path like Wall Street, Big Law, etc.

I just think our kids should go to schools that won't put them or us in debt, where they can mature and START to figure out who and what they want to become in life. I just feel like DCUM especially makes this more complicated than it needs to be because there is so much focus on brand names.

Again, not a lawyer so what do I know.

Google bimodal lawyer salaries to see why that’s not entirely accurate. Law is unusually feast and famine.

Add to this that law can shut you out of other jobs as well. The real issue is that law schools will pump out another crop of law students before the recent graduates all secured jobs.

Employers that hire entry level attorneys only hire the current (or upcoming) graduating class. They won't hire the dregs of the prior class. So if you don't get an offer as you are graduating or shortly after, you likely will never get a job as a lawyer. You end up shut out of entry level employment with a JD that hurts you in applying for non-lawyer jobs. It's not really an option to bounce around for a few years before finding a career like it is after a BA or BS.

Non-lawyer here and sorry if I'm derailing the discussion, but I always thought that having a law degree gives you more options than an MBA or other Masters degree, for example. With a JD, you could become a lawyer but if that doesn't work out for whatever reason, your JD is still valuable in non-lawyer careers, whereas an MBA or other Masters can never be a lawyer. I understand a Masters is usually a 2-year commitment whereas a JD is 3-years, so more time and money, but if you set aside the time and money factor, is it still bad to get a JD if you don't end up becoming a lawyer?

Absolutely incorrect. Possibly the most inaccurate post in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to go against the grain on this thread and say prestige is for the birds. I know DCUM is obsessed with it but you can have a completely lucrative career having gone to a public law school. The vast majority of lawyers in this country are not employed at big law and did not attend a top 10 law school.

In fact, most of the attys that I know who started up their own firms and now make $$$ went to public, no name schools. DCUM is a weird place for advice because it slants in one direction only - private, prestigious, big law, money, did I say prestige? In truth, there a multitude of avenues for success.

I went to a public, not highly ranked school. I started up my own practice because I wanted more freedom to raise my kids. I don't make big law money but at $400-500K, I'm doing just fine in a dual income home.

There are lots of ways to make a living in law, OP, more than gov't and big law. Chances are when your DC gets to law school interests will change.

This is really good. Is that your net? What practice area? Are you a solo? Any employees or associates? Any office overhead? ~~Another Lawyer

The range is gross. At October, my YTD gross is about $420K. I expect to hit about $455/470 by end of this year (gross) with $425-ish net. I'm 100% virtual so my overhead is about $30K per year. It's very low so I keep roughly 90% of what I bring in. This does not include my taxes (obv) just office expenses (e.g., virtual lease, softwares, supplies, some 1099 work, cc fees). I have one contractor who works on an as needed basis but otherwise I'm a true solo. I don't have the bandwidth for a full office with employees due to kids/family, though have been approached by other firms re: mergers. I'm just not interested. I'm in employment based immigration and have been doing this over a decade. Year 1, I made $20K so it was a steady climb.

PP here -- this is impressive. What kind of marketing did you do to make the steady climb? I would love to do this but don't think I currently have the portable book to make it more profitable than what I'm doing now, unless perhaps I took on my own contract work. What % do you pay your contractor? Sorry to derail the thread, but it does show OP that there is more than Big Law and Gov Law.

I pay the contractor a flat fee per project. She has given me a fee schedule per case. Because of the type of work we do, it's usually flat fee. However, I don't send out work that often - maybe a few a year. I don't do any marketing now. It's all client referral. The first few years, I tried marketing via online sources that yielded little. The key to solo practice is sticking in the game because it takes a while for the referral pipeline to build up. Salaries were Y1 $20K (but I started mid-year); Y2 $65K; Y3 $80; Y5 $111 Y6$132....Y10 $320K....Y12 $425(est). There are big bumps in some years because I gained large corp clients in some years, or COVID. I'm anticipating that I will level off, or have to hire someone bc I'm at max of what solo can handle.

And yes, there's so much more to law than just the govt & big law discussion. 80% of the attys that I know do something similar to what I'm doing. Maybe it's because I didn't start out in DC metro. Anyway, solo, small to mid size firms should not be overlooked. I have been at home virtually working for past 10 years. I've raised my kids and controlled my own time. I don't think that I'm missed out too much career ways because law is so flexible. Just something to think about, OP.

So you opened a solo practice straight out of law school? No prior legal experience? Did you have loans? What year was this?

No, I worked for a firm where I gained experience in my field of expertise for about 2 years. I did not start my firm with a book of business, though, as I'd left to have a baby. Yes, I had loans - about $80K. It was 2011. In the first few years, I had to do contract work on the side to supplement income until I got to a level where my practice was making enough to support me.

Ok. So your anecdote is completely dependent on law grads finding an entry level position to learn the trade. Pretty much no one opens a solo practice straight out of law school. The risk of a lower tier school is never finding that entry level job.

That is complete nonsense. Lower tier grads find jobs all the time. And that is my point. The posters on here just assume that the ONLY jobs are the prestigious law firms in downtown DC when, in fact, the vast majority of law firms in this country are small-mid sized firms. I worked at one of those. My first job was a small firm with 4 employees. The problem is that people on here thumb their noses at small firms as if that experience is neither good enough or helpful to the resume which could not be further from the truth.

And no one said opening a solo practice is dependent on getting a firm job first. I know plenty of attys who went solo straight out of school. There are a number of different paths. You just have to be entrepreneurial enough to find them.

Lots may find jobs. Lots also don't. That's what the data says. Lots of grads from lower tier schools with big loans and no job.

What schools are we talking with the phrase "lower tier"?

There are about 200 ABA accredited law schools broken up by tiers of 50 schools. Lower tiers equal schools ranked #51 to #192.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a lawyer and no have no idea if my college freshman will want to become a lawyer, but isn't this similar to what any graduate can expect when seeking a job? Some will immediately become gainfully employed, while it may take longer for others. Those who graduate from elite schools may have their first choice of jobs, while those who graduates from a school ranked 500 may take longer to find their place.

Either way, the likelihood is that no recent graduate, and I'd include those from undergrad and graduate schools, is going to remain in their first job for a long time. More likely, they'll bounce around from job to job during their 20s until they find something that sticks for them. So, why does it matter so much where you go to school unless you're aiming for a very niche career path like Wall Street, Big Law, etc.

I just think our kids should go to schools that won't put them or us in debt, where they can mature and START to figure out who and what they want to become in life. I just feel like DCUM especially makes this more complicated than it needs to be because there is so much focus on brand names.

Again, not a lawyer so what do I know.

Google bimodal lawyer salaries to see why that’s not entirely accurate. Law is unusually feast and famine.

Add to this that law can shut you out of other jobs as well. The real issue is that law schools will pump out another crop of law students before the recent graduates all secured jobs.

Employers that hire entry level attorneys only hire the current (or upcoming) graduating class. They won't hire the dregs of the prior class. So if you don't get an offer as you are graduating or shortly after, you likely will never get a job as a lawyer. You end up shut out of entry level employment with a JD that hurts you in applying for non-lawyer jobs. It's not really an option to bounce around for a few years before finding a career like it is after a BA or BS.

Non-lawyer here and sorry if I'm derailing the discussion, but I always thought that having a law degree gives you more options than an MBA or other Masters degree, for example. With a JD, you could become a lawyer but if that doesn't work out for whatever reason, your JD is still valuable in non-lawyer careers, whereas an MBA or other Masters can never be a lawyer. I understand a Masters is usually a 2-year commitment whereas a JD is 3-years, so more time and money, but if you set aside the time and money factor, is it still bad to get a JD if you don't end up becoming a lawyer?

Absolutely incorrect. Possibly the most inaccurate post in this thread.

I don't know if it is incorrect just rare to use law degree successful elsewhere. My friend went to Harvard Law and she is a major business woman now--started in entertainment industry. Law degree (because Harvard) opened doors. Lot of investment bankers were lawyers. When I was at a wall street law firm, many people went into I banking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “T14 or Bust” crowd on DCUM is probably the same crowd who insists that you have to go to a brand name college to have any chance of success in life as well. Neither is true.

The key isn’t to go to a T14 - it’s to go to the highest ranked law school that you can get into that you can afford to attend without going into substantial debt. If you have to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to Harvard, yes, your employment options may be the best - but as a practical matter your options will be limited to the drudgery of Biglaw because you’ll need to earn that kind of money for several years at a minimum simply to pay your loans off. You’d be far better off attending a top 30 law school that gives you money and graduating debt free rather than a T14 that requires you to incur crushing debt.

Unfortunatey, the key is to go to a Top 15 law school (15 as Texas has a very robust market for attorneys) or to attend a school in the geographical region where you intend to practice on a large scholarship so that no student debt is incurred for law school.

Top 30 law school is not a significant distinction, but Top 15 is a meaningful distinction with respect to employment prospects.

No one says Top 15. It's T14

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to go against the grain on this thread and say prestige is for the birds. I know DCUM is obsessed with it but you can have a completely lucrative career having gone to a public law school. The vast majority of lawyers in this country are not employed at big law and did not attend a top 10 law school.

In fact, most of the attys that I know who started up their own firms and now make $$$ went to public, no name schools. DCUM is a weird place for advice because it slants in one direction only - private, prestigious, big law, money, did I say prestige? In truth, there a multitude of avenues for success.

I went to a public, not highly ranked school. I started up my own practice because I wanted more freedom to raise my kids. I don't make big law money but at $400-500K, I'm doing just fine in a dual income home.

There are lots of ways to make a living in law, OP, more than gov't and big law. Chances are when your DC gets to law school interests will change.

This is really good. Is that your net? What practice area? Are you a solo? Any employees or associates? Any office overhead? ~~Another Lawyer

The range is gross. At October, my YTD gross is about $420K. I expect to hit about $455/470 by end of this year (gross) with $425-ish net. I'm 100% virtual so my overhead is about $30K per year. It's very low so I keep roughly 90% of what I bring in. This does not include my taxes (obv) just office expenses (e.g., virtual lease, softwares, supplies, some 1099 work, cc fees). I have one contractor who works on an as needed basis but otherwise I'm a true solo. I don't have the bandwidth for a full office with employees due to kids/family, though have been approached by other firms re: mergers. I'm just not interested. I'm in employment based immigration and have been doing this over a decade. Year 1, I made $20K so it was a steady climb.

PP here -- this is impressive. What kind of marketing did you do to make the steady climb? I would love to do this but don't think I currently have the portable book to make it more profitable than what I'm doing now, unless perhaps I took on my own contract work. What % do you pay your contractor? Sorry to derail the thread, but it does show OP that there is more than Big Law and Gov Law.

I pay the contractor a flat fee per project. She has given me a fee schedule per case. Because of the type of work we do, it's usually flat fee. However, I don't send out work that often - maybe a few a year. I don't do any marketing now. It's all client referral. The first few years, I tried marketing via online sources that yielded little. The key to solo practice is sticking in the game because it takes a while for the referral pipeline to build up. Salaries were Y1 $20K (but I started mid-year); Y2 $65K; Y3 $80; Y5 $111 Y6$132....Y10 $320K....Y12 $425(est). There are big bumps in some years because I gained large corp clients in some years, or COVID. I'm anticipating that I will level off, or have to hire someone bc I'm at max of what solo can handle.

And yes, there's so much more to law than just the govt & big law discussion. 80% of the attys that I know do something similar to what I'm doing. Maybe it's because I didn't start out in DC metro. Anyway, solo, small to mid size firms should not be overlooked. I have been at home virtually working for past 10 years. I've raised my kids and controlled my own time. I don't think that I'm missed out too much career ways because law is so flexible. Just something to think about, OP.

So you opened a solo practice straight out of law school? No prior legal experience? Did you have loans? What year was this?

No, I worked for a firm where I gained experience in my field of expertise for about 2 years. I did not start my firm with a book of business, though, as I'd left to have a baby. Yes, I had loans - about $80K. It was 2011. In the first few years, I had to do contract work on the side to supplement income until I got to a level where my practice was making enough to support me.

Ok. So your anecdote is completely dependent on law grads finding an entry level position to learn the trade. Pretty much no one opens a solo practice straight out of law school. The risk of a lower tier school is never finding that entry level job.

That is complete nonsense. Lower tier grads find jobs all the time. And that is my point. The posters on here just assume that the ONLY jobs are the prestigious law firms in downtown DC when, in fact, the vast majority of law firms in this country are small-mid sized firms. I worked at one of those. My first job was a small firm with 4 employees. The problem is that people on here thumb their noses at small firms as if that experience is neither good enough or helpful to the resume which could not be further from the truth.

And no one said opening a solo practice is dependent on getting a firm job first. I know plenty of attys who went solo straight out of school. There are a number of different paths. You just have to be entrepreneurial enough to find them.

Lots may find jobs. Lots also don't. That's what the data says. Lots of grads from lower tier schools with big loans and no job.

What schools are we talking with the phrase "lower tier"?

There are about 200 ABA accredited law schools broken up by tiers of 50 schools. Lower tiers equal schools ranked #51 to #192.

In the 2008 recession, any school outside the T10 was a risky place to be for post-employment prospects. I was at Georgetown Law and it wasn't good. In a good or great economy, schools like GW and UCLA and some other tier 1 schools also do very well with good job prospects deep into the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “T14 or Bust” crowd on DCUM is probably the same crowd who insists that you have to go to a brand name college to have any chance of success in life as well. Neither is true.

The key isn’t to go to a T14 - it’s to go to the highest ranked law school that you can get into that you can afford to attend without going into substantial debt. If you have to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to Harvard, yes, your employment options may be the best - but as a practical matter your options will be limited to the drudgery of Biglaw because you’ll need to earn that kind of money for several years at a minimum simply to pay your loans off. You’d be far better off attending a top 30 law school that gives you money and graduating debt free rather than a T14 that requires you to incur crushing debt.

Unfortunatey, the key is to go to a Top 15 law school (15 as Texas has a very robust market for attorneys) or to attend a school in the geographical region where you intend to practice on a large scholarship so that no student debt is incurred for law school.

Top 30 law school is not a significant distinction, but Top 15 is a meaningful distinction with respect to employment prospects.

No one says Top 15. It's T14

I think OP explained that Texas May be worth it if you don’t mind staying in Texas. So she did T14 + Texas = 15

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He needs to research environmental law jobs and understand what that actually entails.

He has started that a bit.

Getting a government spot doing environmental law means you need to go to a top school and do well. Those jobs are filled with Harvard and Yale grads. You'll have an okay salary, but will be counting on the government forgiving your loans.

The other option is going into BigLaw and to defend companies in their quest to destroy the environment. You will be able to pay off your loans, but it isn't a job for a value-driven environmentalist.

If you can't get a prestigious federal job or get into Biglaw, if you are lucky, then you will make a subsistence wage filing petitions for local companies and individuals. More likely you won't get a legal job at all.

EPA is starving for attorneys, there’s been a lot of recent turnover. You need to show commitment to the mission. Most Fed attorney jobs don’t hire right out of law school though, but you definitely don’t need to go to a T14 school to get there. If he’s committed to environmental law, he should also check out Vermont Law School and Pace. uMD hs a good environmental program too.

Ugh. Do not go to Pace under any circumstance. Terrible advice. Do not go to Vermont or UMD unless you can basically go for free and have strong ties to the state.

I work at Interior and we routinely hire people from VLS.

+1 I'm at EPA and we hire a lot of VLS

Vermont Law School is in a dire financial situation.

Vermont Law School's refuses to supply employment reports to law school transparency due to poor results.

If the EPA / Interior hire a couple of grads from Vermont Law School, I suspect that they have relevant work experience and additional focused education beyond that obtained at Vermont Law School.

A few years ago, VLS was in danger of shutting down. Do your research if considering this law school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to go against the grain on this thread and say prestige is for the birds. I know DCUM is obsessed with it but you can have a completely lucrative career having gone to a public law school. The vast majority of lawyers in this country are not employed at big law and did not attend a top 10 law school.

In fact, most of the attys that I know who started up their own firms and now make $$$ went to public, no name schools. DCUM is a weird place for advice because it slants in one direction only - private, prestigious, big law, money, did I say prestige? In truth, there a multitude of avenues for success.

I went to a public, not highly ranked school. I started up my own practice because I wanted more freedom to raise my kids. I don't make big law money but at $400-500K, I'm doing just fine in a dual income home.

There are lots of ways to make a living in law, OP, more than gov't and big law. Chances are when your DC gets to law school interests will change.

This is really good. Is that your net? What practice area? Are you a solo? Any employees or associates? Any office overhead? ~~Another Lawyer

I agree with all of what the first PP said. If you want BIGLAW, then prestige matters. But there are LOTS of ways to have a path in law that involves other than BIGLAW. Government (Federal is a tough entry but not impossible, but state government too). Nonprofit or public interest. Small or solo practitioners. The other options may not be as lucrative at first but it is doable. And nonprofit/public interest may have some loan replacement.

I'm in government but my experience will not be representative now as I got in 25 years ago. That said, my intent was on one practice area but I took what I could get at the time (BigLaw was not a good fit for me). And I ended up not in the practice area I thought but with a phenomenal mentor (and friend) who set me on a path that was good enough (if not the one I wanted initially). Be flexible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a lawyer and no have no idea if my college freshman will want to become a lawyer, but isn't this similar to what any graduate can expect when seeking a job? Some will immediately become gainfully employed, while it may take longer for others. Those who graduate from elite schools may have their first choice of jobs, while those who graduates from a school ranked 500 may take longer to find their place.

Either way, the likelihood is that no recent graduate, and I'd include those from undergrad and graduate schools, is going to remain in their first job for a long time. More likely, they'll bounce around from job to job during their 20s until they find something that sticks for them. So, why does it matter so much where you go to school unless you're aiming for a very niche career path like Wall Street, Big Law, etc.

I just think our kids should go to schools that won't put them or us in debt, where they can mature and START to figure out who and what they want to become in life. I just feel like DCUM especially makes this more complicated than it needs to be because there is so much focus on brand names.

Again, not a lawyer so what do I know.

Google bimodal lawyer salaries to see why that’s not entirely accurate. Law is unusually feast and famine.

Add to this that law can shut you out of other jobs as well. The real issue is that law schools will pump out another crop of law students before the recent graduates all secured jobs.

Employers that hire entry level attorneys only hire the current (or upcoming) graduating class. They won't hire the dregs of the prior class. So if you don't get an offer as you are graduating or shortly after, you likely will never get a job as a lawyer. You end up shut out of entry level employment with a JD that hurts you in applying for non-lawyer jobs. It's not really an option to bounce around for a few years before finding a career like it is after a BA or BS.

Non-lawyer here and sorry if I'm derailing the discussion, but I always thought that having a law degree gives you more options than an MBA or other Masters degree, for example. With a JD, you could become a lawyer but if that doesn't work out for whatever reason, your JD is still valuable in non-lawyer careers, whereas an MBA or other Masters can never be a lawyer. I understand a Masters is usually a 2-year commitment whereas a JD is 3-years, so more time and money, but if you set aside the time and money factor, is it still bad to get a JD if you don't end up becoming a lawyer?

Absolutely incorrect. Possibly the most inaccurate post in this thread.

Not really. I know lots and lots of my classmates left law to do other non-law work. Some have LLMs or went back for other certificates but many did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He needs to research environmental law jobs and understand what that actually entails.

He has started that a bit.

Getting a government spot doing environmental law means you need to go to a top school and do well. Those jobs are filled with Harvard and Yale grads. You'll have an okay salary, but will be counting on the government forgiving your loans.

The other option is going into BigLaw and to defend companies in their quest to destroy the environment. You will be able to pay off your loans, but it isn't a job for a value-driven environmentalist.

If you can't get a prestigious federal job or get into Biglaw, if you are lucky, then you will make a subsistence wage filing petitions for local companies and individuals. More likely you won't get a legal job at all.

EPA is starving for attorneys, there’s been a lot of recent turnover. You need to show commitment to the mission. Most Fed attorney jobs don’t hire right out of law school though, but you definitely don’t need to go to a T14 school to get there. If he’s committed to environmental law, he should also check out Vermont Law School and Pace. uMD hs a good environmental program too.

Ugh. Do not go to Pace under any circumstance. Terrible advice. Do not go to Vermont or UMD unless you can basically go for free and have strong ties to the state.

I work at Interior and we routinely hire people from VLS.

+1 I'm at EPA and we hire a lot of VLS

Vermont Law School is in a dire financial situation.

Vermont Law School's refuses to supply employment reports to law school transparency due to poor results.

If the EPA / Interior hire a couple of grads from Vermont Law School, I suspect that they have relevant work experience and additional focused education beyond that obtained at Vermont Law School.

A few years ago, VLS was in danger of shutting down. Do your research if considering this law school.

A new law dean was hired at Vermont Law School in 2017. Within months, the new law dean publicly proclaimed that VLS was in danger of closing down due to a $2 million dollar annual budget deficit. VLS stripped 14 law professors of tenure in order to reduce costs & expanded student enrollment as law schools are tuition dependent institutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a lawyer and no have no idea if my college freshman will want to become a lawyer, but isn't this similar to what any graduate can expect when seeking a job? Some will immediately become gainfully employed, while it may take longer for others. Those who graduate from elite schools may have their first choice of jobs, while those who graduates from a school ranked 500 may take longer to find their place.

Either way, the likelihood is that no recent graduate, and I'd include those from undergrad and graduate schools, is going to remain in their first job for a long time. More likely, they'll bounce around from job to job during their 20s until they find something that sticks for them. So, why does it matter so much where you go to school unless you're aiming for a very niche career path like Wall Street, Big Law, etc.

I just think our kids should go to schools that won't put them or us in debt, where they can mature and START to figure out who and what they want to become in life. I just feel like DCUM especially makes this more complicated than it needs to be because there is so much focus on brand names.

Again, not a lawyer so what do I know.

Google bimodal lawyer salaries to see why that’s not entirely accurate. Law is unusually feast and famine.

Add to this that law can shut you out of other jobs as well. The real issue is that law schools will pump out another crop of law students before the recent graduates all secured jobs.

Employers that hire entry level attorneys only hire the current (or upcoming) graduating class. They won't hire the dregs of the prior class. So if you don't get an offer as you are graduating or shortly after, you likely will never get a job as a lawyer. You end up shut out of entry level employment with a JD that hurts you in applying for non-lawyer jobs. It's not really an option to bounce around for a few years before finding a career like it is after a BA or BS.

Non-lawyer here and sorry if I'm derailing the discussion, but I always thought that having a law degree gives you more options than an MBA or other Masters degree, for example. With a JD, you could become a lawyer but if that doesn't work out for whatever reason, your JD is still valuable in non-lawyer careers, whereas an MBA or other Masters can never be a lawyer. I understand a Masters is usually a 2-year commitment whereas a JD is 3-years, so more time and money, but if you set aside the time and money factor, is it still bad to get a JD if you don't end up becoming a lawyer?

Absolutely incorrect. Possibly the most inaccurate post in this thread.

Not really. I know lots and lots of my classmates left law to do other non-law work. Some have LLMs or went back for other certificates but many did not.

They left the law AFTER working as a lawyer for a while. It's very hard to leverage a law degree to get a non-legal job right out of law school. Switching out of law later after you have contacts and industry experience is totally different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to go against the grain on this thread and say prestige is for the birds. I know DCUM is obsessed with it but you can have a completely lucrative career having gone to a public law school. The vast majority of lawyers in this country are not employed at big law and did not attend a top 10 law school.

In fact, most of the attys that I know who started up their own firms and now make $$$ went to public, no name schools. DCUM is a weird place for advice because it slants in one direction only - private, prestigious, big law, money, did I say prestige? In truth, there a multitude of avenues for success.

I went to a public, not highly ranked school. I started up my own practice because I wanted more freedom to raise my kids. I don't make big law money but at $400-500K, I'm doing just fine in a dual income home.

There are lots of ways to make a living in law, OP, more than gov't and big law. Chances are when your DC gets to law school interests will change.

This is really good. Is that your net? What practice area? Are you a solo? Any employees or associates? Any office overhead? ~~Another Lawyer

The range is gross. At October, my YTD gross is about $420K. I expect to hit about $455/470 by end of this year (gross) with $425-ish net. I'm 100% virtual so my overhead is about $30K per year. It's very low so I keep roughly 90% of what I bring in. This does not include my taxes (obv) just office expenses (e.g., virtual lease, softwares, supplies, some 1099 work, cc fees). I have one contractor who works on an as needed basis but otherwise I'm a true solo. I don't have the bandwidth for a full office with employees due to kids/family, though have been approached by other firms re: mergers. I'm just not interested. I'm in employment based immigration and have been doing this over a decade. Year 1, I made $20K so it was a steady climb.

PP here -- this is impressive. What kind of marketing did you do to make the steady climb? I would love to do this but don't think I currently have the portable book to make it more profitable than what I'm doing now, unless perhaps I took on my own contract work. What % do you pay your contractor? Sorry to derail the thread, but it does show OP that there is more than Big Law and Gov Law.

I pay the contractor a flat fee per project. She has given me a fee schedule per case. Because of the type of work we do, it's usually flat fee. However, I don't send out work that often - maybe a few a year. I don't do any marketing now. It's all client referral. The first few years, I tried marketing via online sources that yielded little. The key to solo practice is sticking in the game because it takes a while for the referral pipeline to build up. Salaries were Y1 $20K (but I started mid-year); Y2 $65K; Y3 $80; Y5 $111 Y6$132....Y10 $320K....Y12 $425(est). There are big bumps in some years because I gained large corp clients in some years, or COVID. I'm anticipating that I will level off, or have to hire someone bc I'm at max of what solo can handle.

And yes, there's so much more to law than just the govt & big law discussion. 80% of the attys that I know do something similar to what I'm doing. Maybe it's because I didn't start out in DC metro. Anyway, solo, small to mid size firms should not be overlooked. I have been at home virtually working for past 10 years. I've raised my kids and controlled my own time. I don't think that I'm missed out too much career ways because law is so flexible. Just something to think about, OP.

So you opened a solo practice straight out of law school? No prior legal experience? Did you have loans? What year was this?

No, I worked for a firm where I gained experience in my field of expertise for about 2 years. I did not start my firm with a book of business, though, as I'd left to have a baby. Yes, I had loans - about $80K. It was 2011. In the first few years, I had to do contract work on the side to supplement income until I got to a level where my practice was making enough to support me.

Ok. So your anecdote is completely dependent on law grads finding an entry level position to learn the trade. Pretty much no one opens a solo practice straight out of law school. The risk of a lower tier school is never finding that entry level job.

That is complete nonsense. Lower tier grads find jobs all the time. And that is my point. The posters on here just assume that the ONLY jobs are the prestigious law firms in downtown DC when, in fact, the vast majority of law firms in this country are small-mid sized firms. I worked at one of those. My first job was a small firm with 4 employees. The problem is that people on here thumb their noses at small firms as if that experience is neither good enough or helpful to the resume which could not be further from the truth.

And no one said opening a solo practice is dependent on getting a firm job first. I know plenty of attys who went solo straight out of school. There are a number of different paths. You just have to be entrepreneurial enough to find them.

Lots may find jobs. Lots also don't. That's what the data says. Lots of grads from lower tier schools with big loans and no job.

Which is why - upthread - I said to go to a cheap, public law school. Rankings are unimportant just be able to pay for it. And btw, there are lots of unemployed people from expensive grad schools - not just lawyers - so this advise could go to any graduate student, whether they're seeking a JD from an expensive school or a potential MFA from Wesleyan.

There are so many posters on DCUM who tell you all the things that you can't do. I'm offering OP an example of what you can if you're willing to work for it. You can go to a no-name, poorly ranked school and still make a decent living. It is all what you make out of it. If I had listened to DCUM 10 years ago, I'd still be sitting as an employee at a job I hated being miserable. Thank god there was no DCUM for me back then

There aren’t any cheap public law schools anymore. UVA OOS is now $98+ a year and being instate shaves off only a few thousand. Google it

Great. But most people aren't going to UVA law. There are cheap options where people can do well. DCUM just has to get out of the mindset that there are only two things to do with a law career - big law and govt'.
See - https://www.stilt.com/blog/2018/11/cheapest-law-schools/

And I'll preempt all the PPs that will say, but you cannot get a job by graduating from any of the schools listed here. That is just not true. And you graduate with considerably less debt.

It is not worth the time or money to attend any of those 13 odd schools you googled. It simply isn't. Not in this market, which is only going to get worse as the economy continues to sour.

Alabama is a good law school. 92% of University of Kansas grads worked in bar-passage required full time jobs.

+1. The schools on that list are not bad schools in the slightest. It's just that they're not DC-level prestigious. I'd add GMU law to that list. Tuition is relatively affordable at $23K. I know lots of Mason law grads who do very well and have started their own local firms.

OP, my best advice to you is to never take any advice from DCUM lawyers. They know only two avenues for law and scoff at anyone who is not in a T10 school. They also believe that only T10 grads are employed. If there ever was an elitist bubble, it's the lawyers of DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to go against the grain on this thread and say prestige is for the birds. I know DCUM is obsessed with it but you can have a completely lucrative career having gone to a public law school. The vast majority of lawyers in this country are not employed at big law and did not attend a top 10 law school.

In fact, most of the attys that I know who started up their own firms and now make $$$ went to public, no name schools. DCUM is a weird place for advice because it slants in one direction only - private, prestigious, big law, money, did I say prestige? In truth, there a multitude of avenues for success.

I went to a public, not highly ranked school. I started up my own practice because I wanted more freedom to raise my kids. I don't make big law money but at $400-500K, I'm doing just fine in a dual income home.

There are lots of ways to make a living in law, OP, more than gov't and big law. Chances are when your DC gets to law school interests will change.

This is really good. Is that your net? What practice area? Are you a solo? Any employees or associates? Any office overhead? ~~Another Lawyer

I agree with all of what the first PP said. If you want BIGLAW, then prestige matters. But there are LOTS of ways to have a path in law that involves other than BIGLAW. Government (Federal is a tough entry but not impossible, but state government too). Nonprofit or public interest. Small or solo practitioners. The other options may not be as lucrative at first but it is doable. And nonprofit/public interest may have some loan replacement.

I'm in government but my experience will not be representative now as I got in 25 years ago. That said, my intent was on one practice area but I took what I could get at the time (BigLaw was not a good fit for me). And I ended up not in the practice area I thought but with a phenomenal mentor (and friend) who set me on a path that was good enough (if not the one I wanted initially). Be flexible.

+1. This. Or just be open to all possibilities. Lawyers, for some reason, have the most narrow views for what their career paths should look like. Maybe we're more rigid and not as creative as other fields but I'm floored by rigidity of the response here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to go against the grain on this thread and say prestige is for the birds. I know DCUM is obsessed with it but you can have a completely lucrative career having gone to a public law school. The vast majority of lawyers in this country are not employed at big law and did not attend a top 10 law school.

In fact, most of the attys that I know who started up their own firms and now make $$$ went to public, no name schools. DCUM is a weird place for advice because it slants in one direction only - private, prestigious, big law, money, did I say prestige? In truth, there a multitude of avenues for success.

I went to a public, not highly ranked school. I started up my own practice because I wanted more freedom to raise my kids. I don't make big law money but at $400-500K, I'm doing just fine in a dual income home.

There are lots of ways to make a living in law, OP, more than gov't and big law. Chances are when your DC gets to law school interests will change.

This is really good. Is that your net? What practice area? Are you a solo? Any employees or associates? Any office overhead? ~~Another Lawyer

I agree with all of what the first PP said. If you want BIGLAW, then prestige matters. But there are LOTS of ways to have a path in law that involves other than BIGLAW. Government (Federal is a tough entry but not impossible, but state government too). Nonprofit or public interest. Small or solo practitioners. The other options may not be as lucrative at first but it is doable. And nonprofit/public interest may have some loan replacement.

I'm in government but my experience will not be representative now as I got in 25 years ago. That said, my intent was on one practice area but I took what I could get at the time (BigLaw was not a good fit for me). And I ended up not in the practice area I thought but with a phenomenal mentor (and friend) who set me on a path that was good enough (if not the one I wanted initially). Be flexible.

+1. This. Or just be open to all possibilities. Lawyers, for some reason, have the most narrow views for what their career paths should look like. Maybe we're more rigid and not as creative as other fields but I'm floored by rigidity of the response here.

The system is remarkably rigid for entry level employment That's reality, not DCUM bias. Once you have 3-5 years of experience under your belt, there are more options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to go against the grain on this thread and say prestige is for the birds. I know DCUM is obsessed with it but you can have a completely lucrative career having gone to a public law school. The vast majority of lawyers in this country are not employed at big law and did not attend a top 10 law school.

In fact, most of the attys that I know who started up their own firms and now make $$$ went to public, no name schools. DCUM is a weird place for advice because it slants in one direction only - private, prestigious, big law, money, did I say prestige? In truth, there a multitude of avenues for success.

I went to a public, not highly ranked school. I started up my own practice because I wanted more freedom to raise my kids. I don't make big law money but at $400-500K, I'm doing just fine in a dual income home.

There are lots of ways to make a living in law, OP, more than gov't and big law. Chances are when your DC gets to law school interests will change.

This is really good. Is that your net? What practice area? Are you a solo? Any employees or associates? Any office overhead? ~~Another Lawyer

The range is gross. At October, my YTD gross is about $420K. I expect to hit about $455/470 by end of this year (gross) with $425-ish net. I'm 100% virtual so my overhead is about $30K per year. It's very low so I keep roughly 90% of what I bring in. This does not include my taxes (obv) just office expenses (e.g., virtual lease, softwares, supplies, some 1099 work, cc fees). I have one contractor who works on an as needed basis but otherwise I'm a true solo. I don't have the bandwidth for a full office with employees due to kids/family, though have been approached by other firms re: mergers. I'm just not interested. I'm in employment based immigration and have been doing this over a decade. Year 1, I made $20K so it was a steady climb.

PP here -- this is impressive. What kind of marketing did you do to make the steady climb? I would love to do this but don't think I currently have the portable book to make it more profitable than what I'm doing now, unless perhaps I took on my own contract work. What % do you pay your contractor? Sorry to derail the thread, but it does show OP that there is more than Big Law and Gov Law.

I pay the contractor a flat fee per project. She has given me a fee schedule per case. Because of the type of work we do, it's usually flat fee. However, I don't send out work that often - maybe a few a year. I don't do any marketing now. It's all client referral. The first few years, I tried marketing via online sources that yielded little. The key to solo practice is sticking in the game because it takes a while for the referral pipeline to build up. Salaries were Y1 $20K (but I started mid-year); Y2 $65K; Y3 $80; Y5 $111 Y6$132....Y10 $320K....Y12 $425(est). There are big bumps in some years because I gained large corp clients in some years, or COVID. I'm anticipating that I will level off, or have to hire someone bc I'm at max of what solo can handle.

And yes, there's so much more to law than just the govt & big law discussion. 80% of the attys that I know do something similar to what I'm doing. Maybe it's because I didn't start out in DC metro. Anyway, solo, small to mid size firms should not be overlooked. I have been at home virtually working for past 10 years. I've raised my kids and controlled my own time. I don't think that I'm missed out too much career ways because law is so flexible. Just something to think about, OP.

So you opened a solo practice straight out of law school? No prior legal experience? Did you have loans? What year was this?

No, I worked for a firm where I gained experience in my field of expertise for about 2 years. I did not start my firm with a book of business, though, as I'd left to have a baby. Yes, I had loans - about $80K. It was 2011. In the first few years, I had to do contract work on the side to supplement income until I got to a level where my practice was making enough to support me.

Ok. So your anecdote is completely dependent on law grads finding an entry level position to learn the trade. Pretty much no one opens a solo practice straight out of law school. The risk of a lower tier school is never finding that entry level job.

That is complete nonsense. Lower tier grads find jobs all the time. And that is my point. The posters on here just assume that the ONLY jobs are the prestigious law firms in downtown DC when, in fact, the vast majority of law firms in this country are small-mid sized firms. I worked at one of those. My first job was a small firm with 4 employees. The problem is that people on here thumb their noses at small firms as if that experience is neither good enough or helpful to the resume which could not be further from the truth.

And no one said opening a solo practice is dependent on getting a firm job first. I know plenty of attys who went solo straight out of school. There are a number of different paths. You just have to be entrepreneurial enough to find them.

Lots may find jobs. Lots also don't. That's what the data says. Lots of grads from lower tier schools with big loans and no job.

Which is why - upthread - I said to go to a cheap, public law school. Rankings are unimportant just be able to pay for it. And btw, there are lots of unemployed people from expensive grad schools - not just lawyers - so this advise could go to any graduate student, whether they're seeking a JD from an expensive school or a potential MFA from Wesleyan.

There are so many posters on DCUM who tell you all the things that you can't do. I'm offering OP an example of what you can if you're willing to work for it. You can go to a no-name, poorly ranked school and still make a decent living. It is all what you make out of it. If I had listened to DCUM 10 years ago, I'd still be sitting as an employee at a job I hated being miserable. Thank god there was no DCUM for me back then

There aren’t any cheap public law schools anymore. UVA OOS is now $98+ a year and being instate shaves off only a few thousand. Google it

Great. But most people aren't going to UVA law. There are cheap options where people can do well. DCUM just has to get out of the mindset that there are only two things to do with a law career - big law and govt'.
See - https://www.stilt.com/blog/2018/11/cheapest-law-schools/

And I'll preempt all the PPs that will say, but you cannot get a job by graduating from any of the schools listed here. That is just not true. And you graduate with considerably less debt.

It is not worth the time or money to attend any of those 13 odd schools you googled. It simply isn't. Not in this market, which is only going to get worse as the economy continues to sour.

Alabama is a good law school. 92% of University of Kansas grads worked in bar-passage required full time jobs.

+1. The schools on that list are not bad schools in the slightest. It's just that they're not DC-level prestigious. I'd add GMU law to that list. Tuition is relatively affordable at $23K. I know lots of Mason law grads who do very well and have started their own local firms.

OP, my best advice to you is to never take any advice from DCUM lawyers. They know only two avenues for law and scoff at anyone who is not in a T10 school. They also believe that only T10 grads are employed. If there ever was an elitist bubble, it's the lawyers of DC.

Most of these are regional schools. If you want to live in North Dakota or Montana for your career go ahead. It will help to have local ties to find that first job, but you can likely build those while in school.