This month marks the fifth anniversary of the Great Recession: that downturn began in December 2007. The recession officially ended in June 2009 although, as the Bureau of Labor Statistics admits, "many of the statistics that describe the U.S. economy have yet to return to their pre-recession values." One of those key statistics is employment. This graph, created by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, compares job recovery after the last three recessions.
The graph shows that after the 1990 recession, payroll employment took 30 months to reach pre-recession levels. For the 2001 recession, job recovery required 46 months.
But fifty-nine months after the start of the Great Recession, employment still lags well below pre-recession levels. In fact, the employment lag now (-3.0%) is deeper than the troughs of either of the previous recessions. At its depth, employment was off just just 1.4% for the 1990 recession; for the 2001 recession, the worst dip was 2.0%. (For the precise figures, click "View Data" on the Federal Reserve site linked above.)
Put these figures together and you'll discover that the job market has been distressed for seven of the last ten years. The 2001 recession ended by January 2002, but employment didn't recover fully until January of 2005. Then the Great Recession hit in December 2007. For payroll workers, the three good years of the last decade were 2005, 2006, and 2007. The other seven years (2003-2004, as well as 2008-2012) were lean ones.
The same is true of the market for law school graduates: three good years and seven lean ones. Except that for law graduates, even the good years weren't all that great. Data from NALP show that, within nine months of graduation, just 75.9% of the Class of 2001 secured jobs that required bar admission. The 2001 recession pushed that figure down to a low of 73.2% for the Class of 2004. Recovery from the early-century recession produced a peak in 2007: by the nine-month mark, 76.9% of that graduating class had obtained jobs requiring bar admission. But even during that peak year, almost a quarter of graduates from ABA-accredited schools lacked entry-level jobs as practicing lawyers.
Since then, of course, employment has fallen each year. By 2011, just 65.4% of graduates found jobs that required bar admission. Even fewer--just 56.0% of all graduates--had full-time work in that category nine months after graduation.
Now let's widen the time frame, looking at employment trends for law school graduates over the last quarter century. Before 2001, NALP did not distinguish between "Bar Admission Required" and "JD Advantage" positions; instead, it drew a line between "Legal Positions" and "Other Professional" positions. Those categories, however, were similar to the ones used today. NALP, for example, defined Other Professional positions to include jobs "in which a J.D. or some legal background is helpful or preferred, but not required, e.g. FBI special agents, insurance agents, claims representatives, policy analysts, and jobs with legal publishers." That definition is very similar to the one used today for "JD Advantage" positions.
The "Legal Positions" that law graduates obtained from 1985 through 2000, in other words, are very similar to the "Bar Admission Required" ones that schools report today. What happens if we plot those "Legal Positions" together with the "Bar Admission Required" ones? We generate this picture of the employment market for graduates of ABA-accredited law schools:
The percentage of graduates obtaining jobs as practicing lawyers, in other words, has been falling since 1988. The percentage drops sharply during recessions, and recovers modestly in the post-recession years, but those recoveries never match pre-recession highs. Each peak is lower than the last, and the trend since 2007 is straight down.
These facts suggest four things to me: (1) Overall, the U.S. employment market is still in serious trouble. (2) The market for entry-level lawyers is suffering even more--it has been declining since 1988. Even if the market returns to the "highs" of 2005-2007, one quarter of graduates will not find work that requires bar admission. (3) Demand for entry-level attorneys will not, in any event, return to 2005-2007 levels. The above trend-line suggests this is unlikely, and there are plenty of real market forces (technology, outsourcing, unbundling) powering that trend-line. (4) Law schools, large law firms, and NALP (which represents schools and large firms) have been obscuring these trends by highlighting "total employment," BigLaw hiring, and BigLaw salaries.
But for those who care to look, the handwriting is on every wall.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Could you plot that last line graph against one that shows total ABA accredited law schools in the US? I think it would be interesting to juxtapose the two trends.ReplyDelete
I asked for something similar months ago. % employment, with # of law schools and number of law grads as a function of time. Would really like to see that graphic.Delete
Darn it! Oh well, SECOND!!!!ReplyDelete
Mr. Infinty, THIRDReplyDelete
Thank you for this post; for taking the "long view."ReplyDelete
Actually it should be the number of grads pumped out by ABA accredited schools each year.ReplyDelete
One thing 0Ls should be aware of is that practice areas are also cyclical. It is not just the economy - changes in the law make or break practice areas. No changes and there may be nothing to do. Lots of changes and the area may be in boom times.
The cyclical nature of the profession is really important. Every time the stock market dips a lot, there follows a big dip in legal employment. You can count on layoffs from a stock market that drops substantially.
I think the first year employment statistics are just too favorable to reflect reality. Maybe many of the jobs at the bottom pay $30,000 a year. With the 900,000 people with law degrees that are not employed as lawyers, these statistics for first years wreak of something very wrong with them.
What do you mean? The problem is there aren't enough jobs. There isn't much more to say about it.ReplyDelete
DJM has shown that the number of jobs drop after recessions and never recover. This should put an end to the hopes of 0Ls who claim that by the time the graduate the market will recover.
As I read this graph, the "hot" legal market for jobs in the late 90's was far weaker than the status quo in the 80's, the "hot" legal market in the mid 00's was quite a bit weaker than that in the late 90's, and the current decline, longer than any on record, hasn't even bottomed out yet.ReplyDelete
So much for "the 'economy' is going to rebound by the time you graduate." But good thing that a law degree is so versatile!
Great post. Another important thing to realize is how anomalous the second half of the 20th century was in regards to the legal job market; you go back far enough and you see the law profession has been an uncertain career for most of the history of this country.ReplyDelete
But "one can do anything with a law degree," right?!?!ReplyDelete
"spend some shoe leather", "hang up your shingle", "move to Nebraska"Delete
Right. A person has INFINITE opportunities in life. To think otherwise is CHEATING yourself.Delete
Nando, you are a fool sometimes, you know that.Delete
JDpainter, oh no! I made fun of Nando! I said something bad about him.
LOL, is there ANYONE you won't "threaten?" IS NOTHING SACRED?!
DJM--Compelling graph showing the decline of entry level legal jobs over time. Is there comparable data available for journey-level legal employment? It would be interesting to see those data points plotted.ReplyDelete
How exactly is a JD preferred for "FBI special agents, insurance agents, claims representatives, policy analysts, and jobs with legal publishers"? I can see that for some positions for policy analysts and some jobs with legal publishers. For those other positions, though, I can't imagine that a JD is preferred. Does it make any difference to salary? (Beyond whatever bonus it may bring in the government for being an advanced degree; a master's degree in underwater basketweaving would serve just as well.)ReplyDelete
Even if it is "preferred", the fact remains that hardly anyone goes to law school, especially at a cost of three years and as many hundreds of thousands of dollars, in order to sell insurance or process insurance claims or edit reporters. These positions should be excluded from the data. At least they should be shunted off into a separate category.
In an attempt to answer my question above, I typed "JD preferred" (with the quotation marks) into Google. This is the first link that came up:ReplyDelete
Here is the breakdown by "Job function" of the twenty-five jobs listed on the first screen:
4 Product/Process Training
2 Marketing & Communications
1 Professional & Consulting Services
The "Legal" ones:
1) "Contract Attorney". Document review. Requires experience in document review. (Might as well ask for experience using a stapler or a garden hose.) They make it quite clear that the person chosen will not become their employee.
2) "Managing Editor". Requires "[a] JD with 6-8 years law firm or in-house practice experience in employment, tax, intellectual property, commercial law, antitrust or insurance law and experience writing for a major news or legal news publication".
3) "Privacy Officer". Requires "7+ years experience as a privacy counsel for multinational companies, preferably in a high tech, information or media sector".
Note that the first two require a JD. So they're not "JD preferred" at all. The last one stops a little short of requiring a JD, but it's realistically not open to recent graduates.
Some of the positions in the other categories also require a JD.
Admittedly this is just one company's "JD preferred" listings. But the company is a major publisher of legal information. I would not expect to find better "JD preferred" offerings from a firm that doesn't operate in the legal sector.
How does one get experience in doc review if doc review jobs require experience?Delete
I just graduated with a BA and am working as a paralegal doing some doc review on of the the firms matters. I suppose that would qualify me to do contract work after law school (if I go, and that's a big if)Delete
There are only 12,500 attorney jobs opening each year assuming 500,000 non-solo attorneys each working 40 years. 10,000 non-retiring attorneys need to lose their jobs each year for there to be 22,500 first year legal jobs.ReplyDelete
Biglaw will spit out 5,000 a year. Other law jobs spit out 5,000 a year to be replaced by first years.ReplyDelete
These are not good numbers. The first year stats of the ABA and NALP overstate the real opportunities for law grads today. A little over a quarter of them will find jobs as non-solo attorneys.
Another explanation of the high number of first year jobs in relation to total legal jobs is that legal careers in non solo jobs last much less than 40 years. The numbers do not add up.ReplyDelete
One last thing. Here is what anon Mr. Infinity wrote to me on August 24th this year:ReplyDelete
....."So here goes: your grandfather did not build anything. He worked sucking cocks in the toilets of the construction site. The only "steel" he "erected" was the cocks of sex-starved construction workers when he stuck his licked finger up their assholes to make them cum quicker."
Mr Infinity then went on to write:
"Post again, ANYWHERE, Painter, and I'll repost another "Painter's Family" story for us all to share. Next time, his name gets attached to the story, so it's archived by Google for all to see when they search for his achievements."
Whatever I have posted in the past, it was never as vile as the above, and I never threatened anyone.
In fact, I am surprised LawProf will not delete the sexual comments against Cryn Johannsen at the end of the last post.
Keep in mind that a law student or perhaps even an active lawyer made them, and could probably be disbarred or fail C&F if the comments about Cryn are attached to his name.
Once more, I asked Mr. Infinity to reveal his ID as well as the other commenter that is strangely obsessed with my parents and touts public service as a way to get out of SL debt in 10 years.
I did my blogging and media stint, and it had little impact because the SL bubble has not yet broken. And by now I don't need some nut like Mr. Infinity and pals coming here and bothering me or my family.
I came out of school in a pre IBR era, and for much of that time my loans were held by Sallie Mae. I only got into ICR through default in 2009, which added some 50K to my loan balance and placed it out of payoff reach for my lifetime.
I shared my law school transcript so that younger kids could see an example of very poor, and critical first year grades with a GPA below 2.0 after the 1L year at a 4th tier law school.
If I can impart anything, it is to drop out if your first semester/first year grades are bad.
I never passed the bar. I took it three times and it was overwhelming and my scores were so far from passing. The first time the score was around 415. The second time 450. The third time in the mid 500's.
Time went on, and that is the story.
And the more time that goes on serving pizzas, or doing "nonprofessional work" the worse it looks in the eyes of prospective employers.
But you gotta eat.
I thought you were done blogging. Just be done blogging.Delete
The more someone says he/she is done with something, the less done they are. One does not advertise when they leave usually. If a person advertises that they are "done blogging" or "done on the internet" the truth is, they are not done. If you were done you would have just left and not said a thing. To tell the world that you are done shows that you still need the world to see you and think about you. You are not done, sir.Delete
You certainly do - and we all know where that food is coming from.Delete
You think I'm obsessed with your parents? LOL, you'd almost think that *I* was the one living in their house rent-free. Aren't you ashamed of yourself?
Your story (which sounds very made-up) couldn't have scared you that much - I see that you are STILL posting comments.
This has gone beyond stupidity. LawProf, please write a special column on why this specific dingleberry could discharge his debt after 10 years of public service. Please be insanely precise - he'll be scrutinizing every word for some feeble excuse as to why PS loan forgiveness doesn't "apply" to him. Bottom line is that he refuses to do any work.
Gosh, SHUT UP everyone!!! Let the painter steal from the taxpayers in peace!!!Delete
If he was really concerned about the financial well-being of "younger kids," he'd find a way to pay off his loans. Instead he's trying to hand it off to the taxpayers of the future. How strange.
So "Cryn" refers to Cryn Johannsen?!Delete
LOL, it sounds to me like YOU outed and slandered her. You can be sure that the NY bar will be receiving an anonymous complaint against one John Koch later today. Though it's kind of redundant in your case.
One thing that should be entirely clear by now is the John Kock JD Painter is a liar. If he had any dignity and self respect, he would have left this blog with his tail between his legs long ago. Please leave Painter. Go hang with Cryn. Maybe get some action. Big Fun.Delete
Painter, I'm sure there is some kind of defense to whatever slander or libel or whatever it is you're claiming, the defense being that you have republished the material yourself over and over and over and over and over and over.Delete
In fact you seem to be the only person spreading around that (funny) story about your grandfather and the toilets.
I want to be a lawyer but my reading speed is not exceptional. I want to know if lawyers read rather fast compared to the rest of us, and if reading speed is taught during law school or during certain undergraduate programs. Please, if possible, cite sourcesDelete
phlebotomy training hawaii
What you have with 22,500 first year jobs in a legal economy that supports only 12,500 jobs for each law school class is that some of the experienced classes will have few people working as lawyers. For every two law school classes, there are about 25,000 legal jobs outside solo practice. If first years take 22,500 of those jobs, there will only be 2,500 legal jobs for an older class.ReplyDelete
This is scary stuff, because law school classes were up to the 35,000 mark as far back as the late 1970s.
If only 2,500 of 35,000 in a class from the late 1970s are working outside solo practice, you have nightmarish employment results. I think that is what has happened though, when you combine up or out policies with the reluctance in house employers to employ older non-promoted lawyers in house on grounds of "fit".
You don't have any "prospective employers". None. Finito.ReplyDelete
The clinically insane can have their educational debts erased. You should look into it; you would be a slam dunk.
The number of graduating is indeed crucial. Say there were 40K graduates per year in the '85-'87 period (I don't know the actual number, this is just an example) and 85% had bar-required jobs at 9 months. That is 34K employed. Twenty years later, about 75% have bar-required jobs 9 months after graduation. A 13.3% increase in the class size would account for the entire drop from 85% to 75%. That is, 34K could still get bar-required jobs but the percentage would drop the observed amount.ReplyDelete
Obviously, things aren't that simple. More data would help assign the decrease in the employment percentage to the over production of graduates or a decrease in the legal profession.
"Tamanaha misconstrues the central mission of the legal educator. The law professor’s principal task is not to teach would-be attorneys how to fill out forms, or whether to turn left or right in the courthouse to find the Registry of Deeds. It is to teach students to “think like a lawyer,” to learn and hone the very skills of legal analysis and advocacy necessary to achieve their clients’ goals and protect their rights and dignity. More than teaching students what to think, the law professor must—like the old adage about teaching a man to fish so he can feed himself for a lifetime—teach students how to think. Whether the client is a corporation whose counsel would’ve emerged from one of Tamanaha’s elite, three-year programs or an average Joe whose lawyer was herded through a cut-rate, two-year school, all clients need and deserve a lawyer who thinks as well as she can."ReplyDelete
Jesus, these people think well of themselves.
For other such insights, refer to http://www.uclalawreview.org/?p=4036
Let's see, about 50% of all law grads fail to get a legal job of any type whatsoever; at least half [probably more] of those who do find legal jobs don't make enough money to pay their educational debt; and most of those who grab the BigLaw brass ring out of law school will crash and burn within 5-7 years.Delete
And this pompous ass thinks we have to keep the current law school model because of "vital scholarship" for the benefit of society?? Simply delusional ...
I posted this comment to the article cited above. Let's see if it survives moderation.Delete
Professor Silver, according to the Law School Transparency website, less than 44% of the graduating class of 2011 at your law school got a real legal job, and the vast majority of those were at firms of fewer than 25 attorneys. Over 28% of the class is unemployed. The average debt for those financing their St. Thomas University Law School education is $138,000, a level far above what a gig as a new hire at a <25 lawyer firm can pay.
Yet, despite these stats, other than engaging in some "belt tightening," you claim there's no need for law schools to engage in any other reassessment because it would undermine "vital scholarship." Sorry, Professor Silver, but you're living in the bubble. The notion that we should be subsidizing your "vital scholarship" by subjecting tens of thousands of young people to penury is offensive.
Shit. Prove to me that law professors in general are capable of teaching anyone "how to think" or "to think like a lawyer". They're hired not for the ability to teach (a secondary consideration at best) but for the ability to fill law journals with pretentious tripe. "Vital scholarship" indeed.Delete
It is the old John Houseman as Professor Kingsfield in "The Paper Chase" schtick. It won't die.ReplyDelete
Kind of like the Chuck Yeager hero-pilot act commuter pilots put on while they earn less than a fast-food worker and live out if their car.
I wish that law professors were like Prof. Kingsfield.Delete
the legal market will recover when we have a legit overall recovery which we do NOT.. It's all just goverment propaganda, we didn't adress the problems in our economy.. we have too much money in finance, goverment, health care and education and not nearly enough elsewhere.ReplyDelete
Manufacturing creates wealth. Manufacturing is gone. The US economy is deflating. A fancy law degree won't save anyone. The irony is that people are better off with less education then more.Delete
I think we need to look at the numbers differenty - overall first years working vs overall pool of non-solo lawyer jobs and see how many jobs are left for each law school class of experienced lawyers.ReplyDelete
If first years hold legal jobs at 9 times the rate of 30 year lawyers, we have a big problem that is more than pumping out double the first years who are actually hired as lawyers. You have a system that does not retain most of the first years who find legal jobs long term.
I am pretty horrified, because the number of legal jobs taken by first years (over 22,000) is close to double of first year's pro rata share of 500,000 legal jobs.
That is a structural problem in the profession. Fewer and fewer jobs as time goes on. The profession is not healthy if lawyers close to graduation have the lions share of the legal jobs.
I look at the time period for a fired lawyer to sign a release (usually not more than 21 days) and ask if this is enough time for the lawyer to seriously examine if the profession has a pattern or practice of discrimination, especially age discrimination suggested by these numbers, but maybe also sex and race discrimination in an organization. The combination of one by one terminations with releases and confidentiality provisions that gag fired lawyers means that the legal profession can keep bringing in the brightest lawyers, leave half of them unemployed right after law school and then slowly weed the pool of lawyers from each class down to a fairly small number of working lawyers, mainly white male. The rest are crippled from employment, tainted by their failed JDs and very likely unable to make a living.
So I think the problem is not just first year hiring. I think it lies in employment policies that destroy more and more livlihoods of lawyers as they get farther and farther form law school
Older lawyers are less likely to drink the cool-aid.Delete
It's also a problem that most legal practice is so unpleasant that it is incredibily common to hear groups of lawyers start fantasizing about "stopping being a lawyer," only a few short years after they begin practice. Get any group of lawyers together who know each other even slightly well, and one of the main topics of conversation will be various people's plans to leave the law, and hypothesizing about whether/how well that is going to work. I know and know of many people who have succeeded in leaving the law, and even more who talk constantly about leaving the law. The most notable recent one resigned abruptly from his government job with the parting line, "Life's too short to do something you hate." (he was a retired fire fighter who had a pension and became a lawyer as a second career, then decided it sucked too much to continue when he didn't need to do it for the money.) And these are not "losers," they are usually smart high-achievers who have other options - the losers generally have no other options and end up staying.Delete
8:52 No, Troll, I don't think so. 90% of lawyers do not crash and burn because it feels right. Most people crash and burn because they have no employment options.Delete
What about my comment makes me a "troll"? Actually, legal practice sucks ass AND it's hard to get jobs, why are you so offended by that?Delete
I honestly do not know any lawyers who hate the work. Some people hate the hours, the grind, the commute, the pressure of losing the job or the client, sitting for so many hours a day, etc.Delete
Most people who are leaving the law are not leaving because they hate the work. Most people are leaving because they cannot get the work.
Women and male primary caregivers cannot get lawyer work that takes a reasonable amount of time and leaves some time for family. If you take time off, try and get back in.
If there were ample jobs, lawyers would mostly be working in the profession, not leaving it. There would be some form of part-time (maybe after one finishes a case or a deal and works a lot of hours). None of this occurs because the oversupply of lawyers.
The oversupply of lawyers ends most lawyers' careers prematurely.
Okaaaay, if you insist on separating the "hours, grind, commute, pressure, sitting" from "the work," then I guess not everyone hates "the work." Those things are inseperable from the work in my view. But even aside from those things, many aspects of many areas of legal practice consist of repetitive drafting of very similar documents, over and over and over again, with very little to relieve the monotony. So yes, many lawyers I know also hate "the work" in that sense. But if you want to keep clinging to the fantasy that your life will be amazing if you can just get and hold onto a legal job, I guess I can't stop you. I could name off 7 people just off the top of my head who have left legal practice because they found something better to do, which things included: getting married and moving to another country, staying home with kids, early retirement, moving into another line of work, and writing a book. Yes, this is anecdotal and maybe I only know people who want to quit their jobs, but all of these left an existing, stable legal job to do something else. I don't see what the point of pretending this doesn't exist is.Delete
@3:42. Interesting point. For me, it was never about the actual substantive part of working as an attorney. Rather, it's the incessant feeling of losing your job. Did you smile and say good morning to the head partner? Did you defend yourself a little too much when the dumbass partner questioned your work product? As they say, shit rolls downhill. The lowly "help" always loses even when the firm are complete idiots. I'm sick of working for someone else. Being solo has it's own set of problems, but one of them is not whether you will be employed tomorrow. You might not make any money, but you will nevertheless be employed.Delete
Unless and until the manufacturing, engineering, and service jobs that were sent overseas are returned to the US the economy will not recover. In the last election the GOP wrapped themselves in the American Flag and waxed poetically about "small business" growth. Small business is code for extreme hours, low pay, and no benefits. The country needs the big business jobs that are being outsourced to be returned. By whatever mens it takes.ReplyDelete
Unfortunately big business owns the government so I don't see any hope.
Memo to Vladimir: the reson all those jobs went overseas is because American labor is too damn expensive.Delete
Anyone who wants to hire an American these days has to become a free health care/retirement factory as well.
Medical costs are following the same trajectory as law school tuition costs and for exactly the same reason.Delete
If the corporate overlords can play one country off another, to pay the least they can for labor, taxes for infrastructure, compliance with safety and economic rules, then the social contract is broken. Young lawyer scam victims should refuse to pay and move countries.Delete
Whenever I hear someone spraying out some 75-I.Q. buzzword like "infrastructure," I get a death grip on my wallet - because someone is trying to steal it.Delete
Unfortunately we re-elected the Harvard lawyer, who is no longer a Harvard lawyer, along with his Harvard lawyer wife, who also is no longer a Harvard lawyer. They will have four more years of Christmases in Hawaii and summers in Martha's Vineyard while many of our fellow citizens stand in the snow at interstate on-ramps with cardboard signs trying to go somewhere they can get a job. The election of Romney would not have changed anything. This will not end well.ReplyDelete
It's a false choice. Both parties look out for themselves and the 1%.Delete
"This will not end well."Delete
It has already ended.
We are better off giving up on the US (as it has long since given up on us, as anything other than marks to exploit) and seek our future in Asia - if they will have us.
That is consistent with my experience. The OCI of 1988 was apparently glorious - so that when when I went to law school in 1989 all the 3Ls and a lot of the 2Ls were wandering around pinching themselves - and then wham! OCI in 1990 was a bust and 1991 was catastrophic.ReplyDelete
This comment is reserved for what I will say in the next few months when the scamblog movement is DESTROYED. I can tell now more than ever it's on its way. Nando is posting less and less, with content that is of a MUCH lower quality than months passed. And JDpainter is in a frenzy thinking that I said some awful things that I never did say. The professor in all his "glory" is spouting on the same ol' same ol' over and over again. It's all rehashed at this point. PROOF that, I, Mr. Infinity do not even have to work that hard to bring this movement to its knees. It's already happening! The scamblog movement is dying and I will be celebrating hardcore in the next few months.ReplyDelete
I wish Nando would just show us his lawschool rank so Mr. Infinity would leave us alone.Delete
C'mon Nando, show us yer balls!
You're an idiot. You know that, right?Delete
Nando uses the same phrases over and over. it gets annoying. Campos carries the torch now. Nando is an afterthought, but an appreciated one.Delete
Many 0Ls that have sought my advice over the years are clueless about the history of the legal profession and the fact that it has been on the decline for the past 30 years. When I became an attorney, "Blue Sky" law was all the rage. Then the repeal of Glass-Steagall (thanks Bill Clinton) and corporate work started declining. What happened in 2008 was already written on the wall as early as the mid '90s. The law schools knew this as well which is why they revamped their efforts in maximizing profits by increasing tuition by over 400% in the past 20 years, increasing class sizes by as much as 500% in some schools (think Cooley) and opened more ABA approved law schools (as well as non-ABA accredited). The current law school deans and professors want to ride into the sunset by milking the present system for the next 10-20 years. Thanks to the internet and thoughtful blogs such as this one, the truth about the legal profession and the law school scam is being exposed.ReplyDelete
This profession has already cost me 3 marriages, a lifetime of Lipitor medication, multiple ulcers, hundreds of thousands of dollars in mental therapy and anti-depressant medication. Why on earth would any smart kid want to go down this errant path which will only hit a dead end filled with shattered dreams and massive debt?
3 marriages? They ended EXCLUSIVELY because of the legal profession? Or are you referring to the fact that divorce laws exist at all?Delete
I "attracted" 3 women who saw money signs when they married a lawyer. I foolishly believe they all loved me but all they wanted was the status and prestige. I wound up paying for the privilege.Delete
Oh, sure. Couldn't possibly have been your fault, beyond the foolish decision to marry them.Delete
I believe him. When I was an associate at a large firm, a handsome partner became available through divorce. The women lined up to compete for him. Back then partners at that firm made a bundle and it was probably lock step.Delete
That may be, but I simply don't believe that he was an innocent victim. Most divorcé(e)s burnish their halo while laying 100% of the blame at the ex's feet. It almost never rings true—especially when there have been three divorces.Delete
I never claimed to be an innocent victim. I worked hard to ensure all of my spouses had good lifestyles. In the end, they all resented me for putting in the hours. I still to this day recall shopping for a car with my second wife. I wanted to buy a BMW M5 and she wanted me to get a Volvo S80. When I asked her why, her reply was the M5 was a chick magnet and the Volvo was the safer car, as in, her meal ticket would be safer. Women these days marry for financial security. When I first became a lawyer, I used to hit the singles bars with friends. We had an experiment. One night, he would approach women and say he was a lawyer while I would approach the other girlfriends and introduce myself as a blue collar guy (i.e., construction worker, sanitation worker, plumber, etc.). Needless to say, he attracted more women with his "attorney" status than I did with my "blue collar" label despite that I was better looking than my buddy. That should have told me what I had to look forward to but I rolled the dice 3 times and got snake eyes.Delete
I represented a young girl in a divorce once. Married to a newbie attorney who hung a shingle. She got pregnant after a few dates and he married her. The girls mother kept calling and screaming at me that he was an attorney so he should be paying some huge sum in support. Refused to believe me when I told her a young attorney who hung a shingle a few months ago isn't making six figures.Delete
Give it a rest. When women talk about their exes, they invariably describe them as unmitigated jerks and bastards. There's very little self awareness.
Yes, and guys bitching about how mean and unfair their "beautiful trophy wives" turned out to be are just oozing with self awareness. Yawn.Delete
Defensive? I like that.
The partner married a woman with a disability. He could have had anyone. They rode into the sunset and have been married for a long time.ReplyDelete
I'd feel sorry for you - but - the girls with the "cash register eyes" are pretty obvious about it. Yes, in the late 80s and 90s there were some pretty aggressively mercenary women who would assail a lawyer - but you did not have to go home with them or marry them.
I do recall some of the lawyers who used to hang out in DC bars on a friday evening, straight from work they'd say - crisp white shirt, un-rumpled suit, etc., as if they came straight out of GQ, dropping the names of law firms I had never heard of. You would bumble into these places after a long day, tie askew, suit needing a trip to the cleaners, shirt crushed (we used to buy clean shirts because of a lack of time to even take laundry to the cleaners) and the ladies would turn up their noses to go talk the the fresh young lawyer, some who were senior associates and junior partners in firms the odd drinking buddy of mine was also in, but he was such a loser he simply could not recognise them. Funny that. I always wondered how they kept the crease in their trousers and their shirts so brilliant and fresh - wonder what anti-perspirant they used.
MacK, I kind of knew what I was getting into. My exes were trophy wives (Helen of Troy types) who could have married better looking guys than me. Unfortunately, I was a hopeless romantic and wanted to believe in finding one's soulmate or everlasting love. If I can tell 0Ls one thing it is this: you may love the law all you want, but the law will never love you. In fact, much like me (via alimony), you will wind up paying for the "privilege" of loving the law for the next 20-30 years by servicing student loans. If you get by via scholarship (like I did), you pay anyway. My payment was emotional currency as well as financial.Delete
This week I am going to file a formal complaint with my local police about Mr. Infinity.ReplyDelete
And that will cap off the blogging.
LOL, do it - I'm sure they could use a good laugh. Make sure you tell 'em that Mr. Infinity is being a big meanhead.Delete
Promises, promises ...
Hey, NYPD, um, there's this guy on the internet that is bothering me....Delete
The NYPD would probably call in the Marines. Thousands of em.Delete
Or if not the Maureens, maybe at least the Notional Gourd!Delete
There are some horrible remarks that have been made about you and in a sexual context on the Law Professor Paul Campos Blog. I implied that Professor Campos should delete the comments, and he has not done so yet.
I am sorry that such a high profile blog shows such little respect for you.
LOL, the only one who used her last name on this page is YOU.Delete
Split hairs and plod if you like.
You went to the mountaintop and proclaimed public service as the thing that would lead to a new heaven on earth for all 6 figure debtors.
Not just Painter, but all of them.
And then you had to water it down and defend a more limited version of public employment.
And you are always anon and hardly to be taken seriously until you man up to your life as an adult will do.
Only people with something to hide remain anon after five or so requests. Requests that you say who the hell you are.
Please you are in so deep you will be found out anyway.
We have come so far, and the real bloggers....well........
It is nice to sit on a fence along with the Parliament of Fowls, which is what the ILSS is anyway.
""And breakers of the law, the sooth to sayn,
And likerous folk, after that they be dead, lecherous
Shall whirl about the world always in pain,
Till many a world be passed, out of dread; without doubt.
And then, forgiven all their wicked deed,
They shalle come unto that blissful place,
To which to come God thee sende grace!"
LOL - I'm in soooo deep. Haha, hold on a minute, someone's knocking on my door ...Delete
So that was the internet police. Looks like they found me. They wanted me to ask you if "manning up to life as an adult" includes LIVING WITH YOUR FUCKING PARENTS UNTIL YOU'RE 50.
You must be huffing that paint or something. I never walked anything back. You're just too stupid to follow good advice. Duh.
It is so easy.ReplyDelete
10 Years of public service work wipes out ALL SL debt.
No income tax bill at the end and any law grad that doesn't go into public service by now is a fool.
The size of the debt does not matter.
Get a job sweeping floors or scrubbing toilets and after 10 years your six figure debt, so long as it is under a million dollars, will be wiped out and there will be no income tax bill at the end.
So simple, and it is better than sweating out 20 years of IBR. Right?
After all, IBR has a mnassive income tax bill at the end of 20 years.
Goeth into public service. Goeth.
"Your six-figure debt, so long as it is under a million ..." Just brilliant.Delete
Hm, so you can work for 10 years, or be a deadbeat for 25. Obviously you have made your choice - you gonna stop complaining about it?
Goeth to your parents' house. Liveth there. Forever.
Don't capitalize "all" if what you are attempting to stress as a point is inaccurate. One mustn't forget about those pesky private student loans debt that so many of us have (especially that bar exam period loan)Delete
that will NOT be forgiven. I can't forget about my 35k.
I apologize for the typos, my phone is not being cooperative.
Overseas outsourcing will not be a huge deal for US attorney employment (domestic outsourcing is another matter).ReplyDelete
In many low wage countries including in India, there are few people who can write or read as well as lawyers in the US.
Since 2009 Public Service Loan Forgiveness has been there, and it kind of, or really actually does undermine the whole premise of this blog, and moreover undermines any complaints about federal student loan debt.
Qualifying for Public Service IRONCLAD GUARANTEED Loan Forgiveness (after 10 short years) iS just an arm's reach away, and as easy as filling out an application for a very easy to get Public service job.
There is no IRS bill at the end of 10 years in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program.
So here is a case study:
Student Blackacre owes 200K in Undergrad and Law School debt, sans real estate and tall oaks and mature 20 ft. rhododendron hedges.
Student Blackacre's parents are broke but co- signed on the federal debt and are now living on a SS income less 15% due to having co signed on Student Blackacre's Federally backed SL debt.
Student Greenacre, in the meantime, is doing fine, and is a filthy and disgusting parasite and a burden on the parents because his or her parents had enough money to pay for his or her law school tuition and in full.
The story has a happy en ding because student Blackacre signed up for Public service loan forgiveness as soon as it became law and in 2009 and is only 6 or so years away from delivering self and parents from student loan hell, free and clear and with no IRS bill at the end.
Parents will be close to 90 by then, and will be able to get a full SS check with the 15% SL garnishment redacted.
If he uses part of his government salary to make monthly PAYMENTS on the debt (which - correct me if I'm mistaken - is one of the conditions for loan forgiveness), the Federales will leave his parents' SS check alone.Delete
I object. Student Greenacre is a maggot and a disgusting crawling, horrible inhumane reptile because his parents paid for his tuition.ReplyDelete
Student Blackacre borrowed the money and is laughing like hell now!
Does anyone ever compare apples to apples and try to figure out what the employment rate was at e.g., the law schools that existed in 2000 and what it is at those particular schools?
A lot of crappy law schools have been established since then, and some of them have huge classes.
It may be that Ohio State is as good a value now as it was in 2000, but that, e.g., Charlotte, Cooley, St. Thomas, etc. are driving the overall numbers down. Or it may be that Ohio State is a much worse value. But we'll never know unless somebody is willing to take the time to actually drill down on the numbers.
Jason Dolin, an adjunct at Capital University (Columbus, OH), has gathered information on Ohio Public Law Schools by a FOIA request. He has published the results of his inquiry:Delete
The key permanent full time JD required ratio for Ohio State is 64.3%. The lowest in his sample is Cleveland State with 51.6%.
Excellent analysis, DJM. Very convincing. What I don't understand is why law schools, NALP, and the ABA have been working very hard to obscure these facts.ReplyDelete
Oh, yes, the obvious reason is to continue to ensure that they receive the funds from those individuals entering the legal market. But surely they had to see that at some point it would become painfully clear that people weren't getting jobs. And did they think those people would just disappear and be swept under the rug?
Whatever profit they have gained over the years (admittedly, many years) is going to be erased as more and more unhappy grads continue to accumulate. So I guess I am surprised by their short-sightedness. Having so many grads unhappy, unemployed and in massive debt cannot be good for the profession. They didn't anticipate this?
of course they did. that's why they cash out as much now before the LS complex implodes.Delete
The ABA should require the following to be above the doors of every law school:ReplyDelete
"Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate."
(from the Columbus, Ohio bar journal article linked by FatMan above);ReplyDelete
"Further, while their students suffer
with high debt, annual tuition increases
and signiﬁcant un(der)employment,
and while many practitioners struggle
to maintain their income, and while
state judges (including the Justices of
the Ohio Supreme Court) haven’t had
a pay increase for ﬁve years, and while
local governments have had their state
funding cut in half, and while public
ofﬁcials and state employees (many at
the executive level) have had frozen
salaries and have had mandatory “cost
savings days” without pay, the records
provided by Ohio’s public law schools
(none of the privates provided this
salary information) show that the law
faculty at Ohio’s public law schools –
who are also state workers – got regular
salary increases through it all. Through
the worst days of the Great Recession,
their salaries continued to increase. "
12 month cash loans with no fees monetary disaster and you have no way to position of them, and then cash advance are ideal fiscal solution accessible 12 month cash loans all places of UK with hassle free. http://www.12monthloanssonline.co.uk/12-month-cash-loans.htmlReplyDelete