Forgive me if this has been answered, but OP, how are your academic credentials? Did you go to a top-tier or better yet, top-10 school? Do you have top grades, law review or other journal experience, and/or did you make moot court? If your credentials are absolutely stellar, your options may be a bit more open even if you take a bit of time off. I still think it's risky, but you're in a much better position if you have a 4.0 and were president of Harvard Law Review than if you have a 3.3 from somewhere like American or Catholic.

I will say that you seem to have a perplexing lack of understanding of the legal job market and the nature of the practice of law in general. Whatever school you did go to certainly hasn't prepared you well for the realities of job searching and working as a lawyer.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I never said that I consider govt jobs "lowly". It is simply not what interests me.

OP, statements like this are what make you seem so clueless. Most thoughtful people considering a profession define their interests by the subject matter of the work, not the category of employer. There are so many types of law being practiced by Biglaw and in-house lawyers that saying your "interests" are in a job in Biglaw or in-house is meaningless, unless what you really mean is that your only interested in making a lot of money. By the same token, nearly every practice area that you will encounter in private practice has a government or nonprofit counterpart, so again, it makes no sense that you dismiss these types of employers categorically.

I am just so perplexed by the title of this post. Why would there be a huge number of lawyers who don't work because it's not worth it financially? If anything the salaries will outweigh child care, although again, this is not a concern of yours since your husband makes big money.

Why don't govt jobs "interest" you but big law does?? Many of those jobs are pretty dull (doc review anyone?)

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I never said that I consider govt jobs "lowly". It is simply not what interests me.

Well that's certainly lucky, since your chances of getting a government job in this market with your experience are approximately nil.

OP here. I never said that I consider govt jobs "lowly". It is simply not what interests me.

Anonymous wrote:I bet all BIG law firms are holding their collective breath just waiting for you tp let them know when you're ready to let them start the bidding war.

I hope your nasty post at least makes you feel better, otherwise it would be a waste of everybody's time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with the brilliant suggestion to just go get a government job. That market has become extremely competitive as well. OP has zero relevant experience - she's not going to be able to just waltz into the SEC, CFTC, etc. and gets some great experience to then lateral over to Big Law.

She should have taken a leave of absence from law school when she had her son. She could not have possibly had him at a worse time in her career.

Thank you! I think some of the PPs are either not lawyers, or lawyers that haven't job searched in 7 or more years. It would be almost impossible for OP to get a govt job.

No kidding. I just started at the SEC (don't want to out myself by posting my history but I am NOT straight out of law school). The head of hiring committee told me that they got 1000 applications for 5 positions, mostly from senior associates and junior partners at Biglaw firms.

Bingo.

This is the market today. We open up GS-14 and GS-15 positions and we get hundreds of resumes including partners and senior associates from Biglaw who are dying for a "lowly" govt. job.

OP would not even get an interview given the lack of experience in specialized areas we would be looking for.

Anonymous wrote:You went to LS hoping for a BigLaw job? And now you don't have one? What does that tell you?

Indeed. OP had a highly unrealistic and speculative plan. It happens. Bad choices.

I bet all BIG law firms are holding their collective breath just waiting for you tp let them know when you're ready to let them start the bidding war.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why didn't you wait a couple years to have kids?

Yeah, cause this advice helps her now.

It was a question, not advice. Right back at ya!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think so. She's already in the top income bracket because of DH's income, so all of her income is taxed at the top rate of 35% for federal, plus 8.5% if she lives in DC, plus 7.65 percent payroll taxes, which equals just over 50%.

.

No, no, no, no, no! I am consistently amazed at how ignorant people are of MARGINAL TAX RATES. The 35% top bracket only applies to a portion of the family's income. Everyone's first $10,000 is taxed at the same rate. If you are in the 35% bracket, you do NOT pay 35% of your total income in federal income taxes. My family is in the 25% bracket but our effective rate is much lower, maybe 15% once you count all of our deductions, exemptions, and credits.

Here is a quick explanation of how marginal tax rates work: http://www.moolanomy.com/1800/how-do-marginal-tax-rate-and-effective-tax-rate-work/

Huh? Who doesn't understand marginal tax rates? When OP earns $ she doesn't get to use the lower brackets unless she divorces DH$$$ first.

Anonymous wrote:Does no one else find it odd that OP's parents paid for her law school while she was married to a wealthy husband, pregnant with his child? What kind of bizarro family situation is this?

Maybe her parents are super rich too?

Does no one else find it odd that OP's parents paid for her law school while she was married to a wealthy husband, pregnant with his child? What kind of bizarro family situation is this?

I also think this post is fake because the OP sounds unbelievably entitled and completely clueless. She does not want to work hard, wants to be at home with her kid, and wants to make a lot of $$$ in private practice - all at the same time. Sorry - it does not work that way. In the legal world, you generally have to work really hard in order to make the big bucks.

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think so. She's already in the top income bracket because of DH's income, so all of her income is taxed at the top rate of 35% for federal, plus 8.5% if she lives in DC, plus 7.65 percent payroll taxes, which equals just over 50%.

.

No, no, no, no, no! I am consistently amazed at how ignorant people are of MARGINAL TAX RATES. The 35% top bracket only applies to a portion of the family's income. Everyone's first $10,000 is taxed at the same rate. If you are in the 35% bracket, you do NOT pay 35% of your total income in federal income taxes. My family is in the 25% bracket but our effective rate is much lower, maybe 15% once you count all of our deductions, exemptions, and credits.

Here is a quick explanation of how marginal tax rates work: http://www.moolanomy.com/1800/how-do-marginal-tax-rate-and-effective-tax-rate-work/