Most lawyers I know are miserable and disillusioned, with tremendous student loan debt for years.

Can you work on the causes you care about in a different capacity? Using the time and money you would have "spent" on law school directly on the cause you care about?

In the end it is your life, but at least shadow someone first to be sure your fantasy is not just that.

Law school is not for ppl interested in politics.

Hell No! You can do anything you want into your mid 70s.

Crazy to consider law school at any age.

To what end? Years of study to work maybe 10 years? That's quite a chunk of retirement money that you will never earn back.

Why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're wasting a spot. You won't actually do anything with the degree; this is not a whimsical degree or just a brag point for a cocktail party. Don't take a spot away from someone who actually needs it.

Gross presumption here. And a person who actually “needs” a spot should earn it and if nothing else should want to have earned it.

OP here. I think that's extremely presumptuous . I would never go to law school with the intention of playing at being a lawyer. It costs a lot of money, even in-state, and I'd plan on getting work afterwards, even if the work wasn't all that well paid. I would DO something with that education, and I would not waste it. OTOH, many people who go to law school end up quitting after a few years. A PP who went to Harvard Law School left the field -- did she "waste" her spot? Going to school so late in life when I know who I am and I know what I like seems to be a much better bet. What I'm trying to figure out is whether or not it would be worth it to me, and I'm still on the fence about that. Spending three years in school when I may not even get work afterwards would definitely not be worth it.

PP from Harvard Law here. There are other ways to think about who is "worthy" of a spot, or who has a more "valid right to a spot" than someone else. I don't see it as only those who stay in the field are worthy of spots. But for argument's sake, let's go with that assumption. Say there are 60% of a graduating class who stay in the field, long-term, and thus, deemed by top PP as "worthy" of the spot. First, others use the knowledge and go into different fields, say, journalism, politics, etc, and that would probably still make the "worthy" cut per PP. But, again for argument's sake, let's assume the other 40% just disappear upon graduation.

PP is ignoring the impact that those 40% had on the 60% that are still practicing. Those three years were shaped by the whole class, not just the 60%. And since that 40% didn't just disappear, some of those alliances and influences continue on. Here is an extreme example: Right now I'm a SAHM, so in PP's world, I am now a total waste of a spot. I am married to a former classmate who is successful enough that I needed to quit and SAH in order to not outsource our childcare. Our marriage is pretty intellectually equal, and my DH is influential in his field. I assert that I have contributed, at times significantly, with my DH's fleshing out and thinking about many issues in his area of law, and that has impacted some case law. If my DH had been a doctor, I don't think my contribution would be less, because the skill learned is a way of thinking that is applicable to many situations. There is no waste; there is only contribution that is manifest in both traditional and non-traditional ways.

OP has an intellectual hunger, and she should go for it. Even as a hobby. She will impact all those around her. There is a distinct possibility that her kids, when teenagers, will have picked up what she's learned and be on the road to becoming sharp thinkers, and also become the worst kids to parent as they spar with the OP. Try to hold it together OP when your kid out-argues you, it's terrible and humbling and thrilling all at the same time. Good luck to you!

I can't decide what I love more about this - the hubris, or the lack of self-awareness.

"In between making dinner and driving Aiden to soccer practice, James and I had a discussion about one of his cases, so I'm still making meaningful contributions to the legal profession. He really should put me on the briefs. Below him, of course, but ahead of the senior associate."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^I also want to say this (this is a take on what I say to myself often about many things; I'm just inserting "You are" for "I am")

You are among the luckiest person who has ever lived. You are a woman born in a rarified time and place--an exclusive time and place where you are not conscripted by race, gender, status of birth or social class. You are allowed to be whatever you want to be, where you can learn whatever you want to learn--all doors can be open to you. Your ancestors would kill for one-tenth of the opportunities that are laid before your feet, daily. Your only job is to to take those opportunities that have been given you and not limit yourself because of some artificial cage you have created for yourself..."it's too late; I'm too old," for example. Someone has to be the oldest new lawyer in America; it might as well be you. Go for it.

This post is absolutely awesome, wow.

+ a million
I printed it out and put it on my desk for inspiration.

Anonymous wrote:^^I also want to say this (this is a take on what I say to myself often about many things; I'm just inserting "You are" for "I am")

You are among the luckiest person who has ever lived. You are a woman born in a rarified time and place--an exclusive time and place where you are not conscripted by race, gender, status of birth or social class. You are allowed to be whatever you want to be, where you can learn whatever you want to learn--all doors can be open to you. Your ancestors would kill for one-tenth of the opportunities that are laid before your feet, daily. Your only job is to to take those opportunities that have been given you and not limit yourself because of some artificial cage you have created for yourself..."it's too late; I'm too old," for example. Someone has to be the oldest new lawyer in America; it might as well be you. Go for it.

This post is absolutely awesome, wow.

Anonymous wrote:New poster with a similar interest. I'm 48, financially secure, just sent the last DC off to college, and both my parents passed in the last two years, so I am feeling a yen for something new. As a nonprofit executive, I'll spend 70% of my time for the next 25 years fundraising, 25% managing, and at most 5% on substantive work. I've got two Ivy degrees, Hill and WH experience, and even a stint in strategy consulting. Lots of publications on my CV. Nearly 30 years ago, my GRE and LSAT scores were perfect and I think I can replicate them. Less than stellar undergrad grades but 4.0 in grad school and TA'd a 3L seminar.

My fantasy is to scrape into a top law school, make law review, clerk for SCOTUS, and then teach for as long as I can. I think RBG once hired a 50-something clerk. A multi-decade legal career seems long enough to be meaningful and contribute to the profession. If truth be told, its the path I might have attempted if a politics didn't seem more exciting at 18. So it's my attempt at having my cake and eating it too. DH is a practicing attorney who thinks it would be more sensible to teach policy/politics or run a smaller organization. But, he's super supportive and game.

I realize the odds of each step in the path are low and most people would think giving up my salary is crazy, but it doesn't seem impossibly absurd. Or is it?

With your resume, couldn’t you teach as an adjunct already? Or must you teach law? I think clerking for SCOTUS is a pipe dream. There are 600+ law students at HLS alone. Even if you were one of them, what do you think you have that a SCOTUS will want you over others? Maturity and life experience doesn’t add much value for a SCOTUS clerk position (compared to say becoming a successful divorce attorney).

Yes, don’t do it. Work for a non profit to advocate for change and to pass laws as a civilian.

Forget a job at this age. Find something you love, make a business out of it. Take courses on Coursera and sharpen your all around skill set.

Go for it

Law school career services person here: Large firms are going to hire "baby lawyers" at age 26 because they are the fools willing to work 80 hours a week to meet insane billable hour requirements. Anyone over the age of 35 is going to tell them where they can shove those hours. Likewise, they are going to deal with overanxious partners and insecure associates by doing whatever they ask.

Older grads generally don't land full-time, permanent positions. And that's what all career services offices obsess upon, thanks to US News. We've had older students come through and do well academically, but most of them use the law degee in some other capacity -- in conjunction with a previous career, consulting, etc.

OP, you should reach out to the officers in your local bar association and set up some informational interviews. Talk with them about what to expect, what they look for when hiring associates, etc. If you decide to go to law school, I would try to get a part-time law clerk position while in school (maybe do law school part-time as well) so that you have your foot in the door somewhere when you graduate.

I'm a 42-year-old lawyer who has been practicing since age 25, went to a top 10 law school, and I work in civil rights law (on the plaintiff side), including pursuing age discrimination claims. People on this board who are suggesting that OP will have to deal with age discrimination (in any profession, but particularly in big law) are not apologists, they are realists. I don't think you do anyone any favors by pretending age discrimination isn't a real thing she will need to be prepared to deal with if she goes to law school. Whether she wants to challenge those norms or not, it's important to know they're there when you're making a decision like this.

FWIW, I would not recommend law school based on OP's posts at this point in her life. Baby lawyers are often NOT the ones doing the most interesting work -- certainly not much more interesting that what skilled paralegals or other advocates can do. So if doing interesting law-related work is the motivation, law school it not necessarily the best way to get there, especially for the first several years out of law school. I also think the idea that it will be easier to get a position as a lawyer doing "interesting but low-paying work" (as in an a non-profit) has a lot of flaws -- there are plenty of ideological people who feel this way, so those jobs are not any less competitive than the high-paying, uninteresting jobs. And the people hiring for those jobs want to see passionate, committed advocates in that field -- not someone who just wants "interesting legal work."

I think the advice to consider the paralegal route is good. You may also consider getting a job as a legal secretary -- I have a friend who worked as a secretary at a large firm while she was in law school in her 20s, and noted that she was paid as much as the paralegals but had better hours (though not as much responsibility). It would give you exposure and experience to decide whether you want to be a paralegal. Finally, you could consider becoming something like a Social Security Disability Advocate, for which you do not need to be a lawyer but can represent people in their disability claims.

If you can pay the tutoring off of the interest earned from
Investment income. Honestly. Do not take away from your retirement or ability to save for retirement.
You might also be a bit underwhelmed by law school. It was a great few years but not earth shattering. Just a lot of reading & thinking. Very fun! But at 50 I know I’d have less tolerance for the BS