Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here and I would say yes.

First off there's just a ton of $ in tech, startups, the opportunity to make it really big.

Beyond that, the "elite" fields for lawyers (appellate advocacy, govt policy, etc) are just feeling very pointless. The Supreme Court is just making up whatever it wants (abortion was a constitutionally protected right for 25 yrs and now it's not?) and it's clear the exec branch can do whatever it wants as well. The whole "nation of laws" thing is feeling like a big depressing eyeroll in these circles.

Generational, life changing money. Big law partners retire well but it’s not setup to make
Your grandchildren rich and protected from a life of toil and pain (basically the life of a big law attorney). Joining a successful start up or ten years at FAANG can get you there.

10 years at FAANG is no longer getting you generational or life changing money. The stock prices are too high to start...I mean, if you join Amazon today, realistically how much will your stock be worth in 10 years...maybe 2-3x higher if you are lucky? You would have to rise meteorically through the ranks to become one of the top 50 execs in the company to earn life changing money. The early employees at these companies literally saw like 10000% returns on their options which you can only get by picking the next Google while it's still just a small company.

Also, some BigLaw partners are getting some fairly eye-popping paydays. Here is from a recent NY Times article:

This is pushing up lawyers’ pay across the industry, including at some of Wall Street’s most prestigious firms, such as Kirkland & Ellis; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Davis Polk; Latham & Watkins; and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Lawyers with close ties to private equity increasingly enjoy pay and prestige similar to those of star lawyers who represent America’s blue-chip companies and advise them on high-profile mergers, takeover battles and litigation.

Numerous people compared it to a star-centric system like the N.B.A., but others worried that higher and higher pay had gotten out of hand and could strain the law firms forced to stretch their budgets to keep talent from leaving.

“Twenty million dollars is the new $10 million,” said Sabina Lippman, a partner and co-founder of the legal recruiter Lippman Jungers. In the past few years, at least 10 law firms have spent — or acknowledged to Ms. Lippman that they need to spend — around $20 million a year or more to lure the highest-profile lawyers.

Last year, six partners at Kirkland, including some who were recruited during the year, each made at least $25 million, according to people with knowledge of the arrangements who weren’t authorized to discuss pay publicly. Several others in its London office made around $20 million.

No one at UGA law is getting that money. You are better off going into banking and asset management if you want those payouts. Those lawyers are wider outliers than their counterparts in PE/HFs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here and I would say yes.

First off there's just a ton of $ in tech, startups, the opportunity to make it really big.

Beyond that, the "elite" fields for lawyers (appellate advocacy, govt policy, etc) are just feeling very pointless. The Supreme Court is just making up whatever it wants (abortion was a constitutionally protected right for 25 yrs and now it's not?) and it's clear the exec branch can do whatever it wants as well. The whole "nation of laws" thing is feeling like a big depressing eyeroll in these circles.

Generational, life changing money. Big law partners retire well but it’s not setup to make
Your grandchildren rich and protected from a life of toil and pain (basically the life of a big law attorney). Joining a successful start up or ten years at FAANG can get you there.

Disagree on this one, though I guess it depends on the firm. Biglaw partners at top firms are retiring with $50-100 million net worths. That's generational wealth. heck, I'd consider even half of that lower number to be generational wealth, and that's very attainable for even the non-rainmakers.

Equity partners at big law firms are absolutely piling in generational wealth. However, they are like the top 0.5% of all lawyers

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here and I would say yes.

First off there's just a ton of $ in tech, startups, the opportunity to make it really big.

Beyond that, the "elite" fields for lawyers (appellate advocacy, govt policy, etc) are just feeling very pointless. The Supreme Court is just making up whatever it wants (abortion was a constitutionally protected right for 25 yrs and now it's not?) and it's clear the exec branch can do whatever it wants as well. The whole "nation of laws" thing is feeling like a big depressing eyeroll in these circles.

Generational, life changing money. Big law partners retire well but it’s not setup to make
Your grandchildren rich and protected from a life of toil and pain (basically the life of a big law attorney). Joining a successful start up or ten years at FAANG can get you there.

10 years at FAANG is no longer getting you generational or life changing money. The stock prices are too high to start...I mean, if you join Amazon today, realistically how much will your stock be worth in 10 years...maybe 2-3x higher if you are lucky? You would have to rise meteorically through the ranks to become one of the top 50 execs in the company to earn life changing money. The early employees at these companies literally saw like 10000% returns on their options which you can only get by picking the next Google while it's still just a small company.

Also, some BigLaw partners are getting some fairly eye-popping paydays. Here is from a recent NY Times article:

This is pushing up lawyers’ pay across the industry, including at some of Wall Street’s most prestigious firms, such as Kirkland & Ellis; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Davis Polk; Latham & Watkins; and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Lawyers with close ties to private equity increasingly enjoy pay and prestige similar to those of star lawyers who represent America’s blue-chip companies and advise them on high-profile mergers, takeover battles and litigation.

Numerous people compared it to a star-centric system like the N.B.A., but others worried that higher and higher pay had gotten out of hand and could strain the law firms forced to stretch their budgets to keep talent from leaving.

“Twenty million dollars is the new $10 million,” said Sabina Lippman, a partner and co-founder of the legal recruiter Lippman Jungers. In the past few years, at least 10 law firms have spent — or acknowledged to Ms. Lippman that they need to spend — around $20 million a year or more to lure the highest-profile lawyers.

Last year, six partners at Kirkland, including some who were recruited during the year, each made at least $25 million, according to people with knowledge of the arrangements who weren’t authorized to discuss pay publicly. Several others in its London office made around $20 million.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here and I would say yes.

First off there's just a ton of $ in tech, startups, the opportunity to make it really big.

Beyond that, the "elite" fields for lawyers (appellate advocacy, govt policy, etc) are just feeling very pointless. The Supreme Court is just making up whatever it wants (abortion was a constitutionally protected right for 25 yrs and now it's not?) and it's clear the exec branch can do whatever it wants as well. The whole "nation of laws" thing is feeling like a big depressing eyeroll in these circles.

Generational, life changing money. Big law partners retire well but it’s not setup to make
Your grandchildren rich and protected from a life of toil and pain (basically the life of a big law attorney). Joining a successful start up or ten years at FAANG can get you there.

Disagree on this one, though I guess it depends on the firm. Biglaw partners at top firms are retiring with $50-100 million net worths. That's generational wealth. heck, I'd consider even half of that lower number to be generational wealth, and that's very attainable for even the non-rainmakers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here and I would say yes.

First off there's just a ton of $ in tech, startups, the opportunity to make it really big.

Beyond that, the "elite" fields for lawyers (appellate advocacy, govt policy, etc) are just feeling very pointless. The Supreme Court is just making up whatever it wants (abortion was a constitutionally protected right for 25 yrs and now it's not?) and it's clear the exec branch can do whatever it wants as well. The whole "nation of laws" thing is feeling like a big depressing eyeroll in these circles.

Generational, life changing money. Big law partners retire well but it’s not setup to make
Your grandchildren rich and protected from a life of toil and pain (basically the life of a big law attorney). Joining a successful start up or ten years at FAANG can get you there.

Disagree on this one, though I guess it depends on the firm. Biglaw partners at top firms are retiring with $50-100 million net worths. That's generational wealth. heck, I'd consider even half of that lower number to be generational wealth, and that's very attainable for even the non-rainmakers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here and I would say yes.

First off there's just a ton of $ in tech, startups, the opportunity to make it really big.

Beyond that, the "elite" fields for lawyers (appellate advocacy, govt policy, etc) are just feeling very pointless. The Supreme Court is just making up whatever it wants (abortion was a constitutionally protected right for 25 yrs and now it's not?) and it's clear the exec branch can do whatever it wants as well. The whole "nation of laws" thing is feeling like a big depressing eyeroll in these circles.

Generational, life changing money. Big law partners retire well but it’s not setup to make
Your grandchildren rich and protected from a life of toil and pain (basically the life of a big law attorney). Joining a successful start up or ten years at FAANG can get you there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Compared to 30 years ago, I think it's very true that there are comparatively few bright students interested in becoming lawyers today. Now, smart and ambitious students are much more likely to choose engineering, finance, pre-med, tech, and consulting.

People are much more informed today about the realities of being a lawyer. And neither the life nor the money seems that appealing to most. I think you really need to feel it as a vocation for it to make sense.

Agree! Very few of my daughter's Princeton class went to law school compared to consulting, IB and FinTech.

That’s because T14s, unlike the M7, discriminates against good schools. They want a 4.0 from southwest flyover state U instead of a 3.5 in math at Princeton. Any front office role in consulting, IB, and fintech straight out of undergrad is better than a V5 offer.

This is 1000% false. The T14 law schools are like 70% all kids from top 20 undergrads with their own undergrads massively over represented.

You then have 1 kid from like 150 different schools.

Untrue. People at Ivies with the grades for law (now, about 3.8 or 3.9 and above) go into IB and asset management. Law is very much frowned upon. You do get some stray Oberlin/UVM/Holy Cross/Loyola Los Angeles tier people. Law school admissions do not give weight towards going to a highly ranked undergrad. Go look at the scatterplot of GPAs and LSATs, it is almost entirely predictive (affirmative action making up the remaining variable)

You are calling a fact untrue. I don't know why you feel the way you do, but I am literally just telling you the facts about top law schools and its nearly 70% coming from Top 20 undergrads.

Something like 20% of Harvard Law went to Harvard undergrad.

Nope

Again...you are saying Nope to a fact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here and I would say yes.

First off there's just a ton of $ in tech, startups, the opportunity to make it really big.

Beyond that, the "elite" fields for lawyers (appellate advocacy, govt policy, etc) are just feeling very pointless. The Supreme Court is just making up whatever it wants (abortion was a constitutionally protected right for 25 yrs and now it's not?) and it's clear the exec branch can do whatever it wants as well. The whole "nation of laws" thing is feeling like a big depressing eyeroll in these circles.

Generational, life changing money. Big law partners retire well but it’s not setup to make
Your grandchildren rich and protected from a life of toil and pain (basically the life of a big law attorney). Joining a successful start up or ten years at FAANG can get you there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here and I would say yes.

First off there's just a ton of $ in tech, startups, the opportunity to make it really big.

Beyond that, the "elite" fields for lawyers (appellate advocacy, govt policy, etc) are just feeling very pointless. The Supreme Court is just making up whatever it wants (abortion was a constitutionally protected right for 25 yrs and now it's not?) and it's clear the exec branch can do whatever it wants as well. The whole "nation of laws" thing is feeling like a big depressing eyeroll in these circles.

Generational, life changing money. Big law partners retire well but it’s not setup to make
Your grandchildren rich and protected from a life of toil and pain (basically the life of a big law attorney). Joining a successful start up or ten years at FAANG can get you there.

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here and I would say yes.

First off there's just a ton of $ in tech, startups, the opportunity to make it really big.

Beyond that, the "elite" fields for lawyers (appellate advocacy, govt policy, etc) are just feeling very pointless. The Supreme Court is just making up whatever it wants (abortion was a constitutionally protected right for 25 yrs and now it's not?) and it's clear the exec branch can do whatever it wants as well. The whole "nation of laws" thing is feeling like a big depressing eyeroll in these circles.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Compared to 30 years ago, I think it's very true that there are comparatively few bright students interested in becoming lawyers today. Now, smart and ambitious students are much more likely to choose engineering, finance, pre-med, tech, and consulting.

People are much more informed today about the realities of being a lawyer. And neither the life nor the money seems that appealing to most. I think you really need to feel it as a vocation for it to make sense.

Agree! Very few of my daughter's Princeton class went to law school compared to consulting, IB and FinTech.

That’s because T14s, unlike the M7, discriminates against good schools. They want a 4.0 from southwest flyover state U instead of a 3.5 in math at Princeton. Any front office role in consulting, IB, and fintech straight out of undergrad is better than a V5 offer.

This is 1000% false. The T14 law schools are like 70% all kids from top 20 undergrads with their own undergrads massively over represented.

You then have 1 kid from like 150 different schools.

Untrue. People at Ivies with the grades for law (now, about 3.8 or 3.9 and above) go into IB and asset management. Law is very much frowned upon. You do get some stray Oberlin/UVM/Holy Cross/Loyola Los Angeles tier people. Law school admissions do not give weight towards going to a highly ranked undergrad. Go look at the scatterplot of GPAs and LSATs, it is almost entirely predictive (affirmative action making up the remaining variable)

You are calling a fact untrue. I don't know why you feel the way you do, but I am literally just telling you the facts about top law schools and its nearly 70% coming from Top 20 undergrads.

Something like 20% of Harvard Law went to Harvard undergrad.

Nope

Again...you are saying Nope to a fact.

Anonymous wrote:Seems like every high-achieving student is going into tech, finance, or consulting.

Back in the 1990's most of the smart kids aspired to Big Law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Compared to 30 years ago, I think it's very true that there are comparatively few bright students interested in becoming lawyers today. Now, smart and ambitious students are much more likely to choose engineering, finance, pre-med, tech, and consulting.

People are much more informed today about the realities of being a lawyer. And neither the life nor the money seems that appealing to most. I think you really need to feel it as a vocation for it to make sense.

Agree! Very few of my daughter's Princeton class went to law school compared to consulting, IB and FinTech.

That’s because T14s, unlike the M7, discriminates against good schools. They want a 4.0 from southwest flyover state U instead of a 3.5 in math at Princeton. Any front office role in consulting, IB, and fintech straight out of undergrad is better than a V5 offer.

This is 1000% false. The T14 law schools are like 70% all kids from top 20 undergrads with their own undergrads massively over represented.

You then have 1 kid from like 150 different schools.

Untrue. People at Ivies with the grades for law (now, about 3.8 or 3.9 and above) go into IB and asset management. Law is very much frowned upon. You do get some stray Oberlin/UVM/Holy Cross/Loyola Los Angeles tier people. Law school admissions do not give weight towards going to a highly ranked undergrad. Go look at the scatterplot of GPAs and LSATs, it is almost entirely predictive (affirmative action making up the remaining variable)

You are calling a fact untrue. I don't know why you feel the way you do, but I am literally just telling you the facts about top law schools and its nearly 70% coming from Top 20 undergrads.

Something like 20% of Harvard Law went to Harvard undergrad.

Nope

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Compared to 30 years ago, I think it's very true that there are comparatively few bright students interested in becoming lawyers today. Now, smart and ambitious students are much more likely to choose engineering, finance, pre-med, tech, and consulting.

People are much more informed today about the realities of being a lawyer. And neither the life nor the money seems that appealing to most. I think you really need to feel it as a vocation for it to make sense.

Agree! Very few of my daughter's Princeton class went to law school compared to consulting, IB and FinTech.

That’s because T14s, unlike the M7, discriminates against good schools. They want a 4.0 from southwest flyover state U instead of a 3.5 in math at Princeton. Any front office role in consulting, IB, and fintech straight out of undergrad is better than a V5 offer.

This is 1000% false. The T14 law schools are like 70% all kids from top 20 undergrads with their own undergrads massively over represented.

You then have 1 kid from like 150 different schools.

Untrue. People at Ivies with the grades for law (now, about 3.8 or 3.9 and above) go into IB and asset management. Law is very much frowned upon. You do get some stray Oberlin/UVM/Holy Cross/Loyola Los Angeles tier people. Law school admissions do not give weight towards going to a highly ranked undergrad. Go look at the scatterplot of GPAs and LSATs, it is almost entirely predictive (affirmative action making up the remaining variable)

You are calling a fact untrue. I don't know why you feel the way you do, but I am literally just telling you the facts about top law schools and its nearly 70% coming from Top 20 undergrads.

Something like 20% of Harvard Law went to Harvard undergrad.