law school?

[Anonymous]

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

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.

This is accurate advice.

The difficulty is that most recent law grads have substantial student loan debt that requires a high paying position within 3 months of graduation.

[Anonymous]

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

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.

No, it is not. It is only rigid if you are vying for one of the very few big law/government spots. There are thousands of law firms in this country - most small and mid size. The supersized firms are in the minority. You all scratch and claw for those positions.

I graduated from a law school that does not break top 50. Everyone that I went to school with is currently employed and many making good money, myself included. DC attorneys just have tunnel vision as to what constitutes an acceptable entry-level position.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1. I'm no longer a practicing attorney, but I still work on the legal environment, and tangentially in the environmental arena. The choices are BigLaw, government, or peanut pay. BigLaw will crush your DC and, likely, preclude him or her from reverting to public service.

[Anonymous]

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

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.

No, it is not. It is only rigid if you are vying for one of the very few big law/government spots. There are thousands of law firms in this country - most small and mid size. The supersized firms are in the minority. You all scratch and claw for those positions.

I graduated from a law school that does not break top 50. Everyone that I went to school with is currently employed and many making good money, myself included. DC attorneys just have tunnel vision as to what constitutes an acceptable entry-level position.

Counter point here is that my law school in the top 50 did not have everyone get a job as a lawyer even a 1+ of applying for any legal job post graduation.

[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.

Well, I think many people go to law school without the goal of being entrepreneurial or the realization that law firms are essentially businesses that can be run well or run poorly. Yes, technically, with a law license, you can practice law without having to be hired by anyone (except clients), but that is not the immediate goal or thought of many who sign up for law school. For some it is, though.

[Anonymous]

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

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.

No, it is not. It is only rigid if you are vying for one of the very few big law/government spots. There are thousands of law firms in this country - most small and mid size. The supersized firms are in the minority. You all scratch and claw for those positions.

I graduated from a law school that does not break top 50. Everyone that I went to school with is currently employed and many making good money, myself included. DC attorneys just have tunnel vision as to what constitutes an acceptable entry-level position.

Many, many small and mid sized firms prefer to take attorneys who leave larger firms after a few years. There's a steady stream and they come well trained. Smaller firms often can't afford to train someone from scratch.

There are far, far more law grads than there are entry level spots every year. That's the fundamental issue.

[Anonymous]

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

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.

No, it is not. It is only rigid if you are vying for one of the very few big law/government spots. There are thousands of law firms in this country - most small and mid size. The supersized firms are in the minority. You all scratch and claw for those positions.

I graduated from a law school that does not break top 50. Everyone that I went to school with is currently employed and many making good money, myself included. DC attorneys just have tunnel vision as to what constitutes an acceptable entry-level position.

Many, many small and mid sized firms prefer to take attorneys who leave larger firms after a few years. There's a steady stream and they come well trained. Smaller firms often can't afford to train someone from scratch.

There are far, far more law grads than there are entry level spots every year. That's the fundamental issue.

Correct. Supply & demand.

[Anonymous]

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

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.

No, it is not. It is only rigid if you are vying for one of the very few big law/government spots. There are thousands of law firms in this country - most small and mid size. The supersized firms are in the minority. You all scratch and claw for those positions.

I graduated from a law school that does not break top 50. Everyone that I went to school with is currently employed and many making good money, myself included. DC attorneys just have tunnel vision as to what constitutes an acceptable entry-level position.

Many, many small and mid sized firms prefer to take attorneys who leave larger firms after a few years. There's a steady stream and they come well trained. Smaller firms often can't afford to train someone from scratch.

There are far, far more law grads than there are entry level spots every year. That's the fundamental issue.

I have worked for small firms with no experience. I also have helped small firms hire attys with no experience. Out of curiosity, have you every worked for, started up, or been involved in a small firm? Or just read about them?

And saying that an employer prefers to hire someone with at least 1-2 years of experience would not distinguish law from any other industry. You could say the same for HR, IT, marketing, or literally any other industry. Nobody likes to hire green.

The only point posters above are making is that there are many avenues to law if you want to pursue them. If you don't - which is the feeling that I'm getting here - you can stay the traditional path.

[Anonymous]

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

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.

No, it is not. It is only rigid if you are vying for one of the very few big law/government spots. There are thousands of law firms in this country - most small and mid size. The supersized firms are in the minority. You all scratch and claw for those positions.

I graduated from a law school that does not break top 50. Everyone that I went to school with is currently employed and many making good money, myself included. DC attorneys just have tunnel vision as to what constitutes an acceptable entry-level position.

Many, many small and mid sized firms prefer to take attorneys who leave larger firms after a few years. There's a steady stream and they come well trained. Smaller firms often can't afford to train someone from scratch.

There are far, far more law grads than there are entry level spots every year. That's the fundamental issue.

I have worked for small firms with no experience. I also have helped small firms hire attys with no experience. Out of curiosity, have you every worked for, started up, or been involved in a small firm? Or just read about them?

And saying that an employer prefers to hire someone with at least 1-2 years of experience would not distinguish law from any other industry. You could say the same for HR, IT, marketing, or literally any other industry. Nobody likes to hire green.

The only point posters above are making is that there are many avenues to law if you want to pursue them. If you don't - which is the feeling that I'm getting here - you can stay the traditional path.

I love that you attest that you had "no experience" at more than one firm. Did you not get experience at the first firm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That was the question posed: a JD is valuable to find work if a law career doesn't work out. And my answer is that it does. At least in my experience.

[Anonymous]

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

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.

No, it is not. It is only rigid if you are vying for one of the very few big law/government spots. There are thousands of law firms in this country - most small and mid size. The supersized firms are in the minority. You all scratch and claw for those positions.

I graduated from a law school that does not break top 50. Everyone that I went to school with is currently employed and many making good money, myself included. DC attorneys just have tunnel vision as to what constitutes an acceptable entry-level position.

Many, many small and mid sized firms prefer to take attorneys who leave larger firms after a few years. There's a steady stream and they come well trained. Smaller firms often can't afford to train someone from scratch.

There are far, far more law grads than there are entry level spots every year. That's the fundamental issue.

I have worked for small firms with no experience. I also have helped small firms hire attys with no experience. Out of curiosity, have you every worked for, started up, or been involved in a small firm? Or just read about them?

And saying that an employer prefers to hire someone with at least 1-2 years of experience would not distinguish law from any other industry. You could say the same for HR, IT, marketing, or literally any other industry. Nobody likes to hire green.

The only point posters above are making is that there are many avenues to law if you want to pursue them. If you don't - which is the feeling that I'm getting here - you can stay the traditional path.

I love that you attest that you had "no experience" at more than one firm. Did you not get experience at the first firm?

Dude, it’s an “s” and clearly that was not the intent. But you didn’t answer the actual questions. Do you know small firms? This thread has been 10 pages of big law attorneys trying to punch down on small firm attys, alternative legal careers, and grads from non T-who the hell cares schools. And yet none of these attys have first hand knowledge of any of the things that they’re punching down on. Never change, DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:T14 might be worth it

If you think the economy is going to crash, then the upper half of the T14 is safer than the lower half. Not safe, but safer if we have a recession.

This is nonsense. First its to 25ish not top 14. Top 25 plus the major schools where the firm has offices. So for example - -Boston is not all Harvard -- also Boston College.

But stick with the T14 -- anywhere in there is fine. Even in bad economic times.

[Anonymous]

If your kid is super smart, it doesn't matter where they go as long as they are at the top of their class. People get too caught up in prestige. I am working with people who went to Harvard and people who went to Catholic University. We are all in the same place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:T14 might be worth it

If you think the economy is going to crash, then the upper half of the T14 is safer than the lower half. Not safe, but safer if we have a recession.

This is nonsense. First its to 25ish not top 14. Top 25 plus the major schools where the firm has offices. So for example - -Boston is not all Harvard -- also Boston College.

But stick with the T14 -- anywhere in there is fine. Even in bad economic times.

That wasn't true in 2009-2011.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:T14 might be worth it

If you think the economy is going to crash, then the upper half of the T14 is safer than the lower half. Not safe, but safer if we have a recession.

This is nonsense. First its to 25ish not top 14. Top 25 plus the major schools where the firm has offices. So for example - -Boston is not all Harvard -- also Boston College.

But stick with the T14 -- anywhere in there is fine. Even in bad economic times.

NP. I was at Georgetown in the early 2000s, after the dot com crash. Forty percent of my class was unemployed at graduation. All the career service office knew how to do was shove people into top 100 vault firms. Those job offers tanked. Top fifteen percent were ok. But I knew people who were in top third, on journal, etc, who had trouble getting jobs.

It didn't help that Georgetown over accepted for my class year, and then let something like seventy transfers in, when they knew the economy sucked. WHy? Because they wanted the tuition revenue to pay for the new building.