The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Advice to Entering Law Students - 2022
Some ideas that might help you make better use of the opportunities available to you in law school.
Law students around the country will be starting classes over the next few weeks. Back in 2018, I wrote a post offering advice to entering students. I tried to focus on points that I rarely, if ever, see made in other pieces of this type. I think all three of the suggestions I made remain just as relevant today. So I reprint my advice from the original post largely unaltered:
1. Think carefully about what kind of law you want to practice.
Law is a profession with relatively high income and social status. Yet studies repeatedly show that many lawyers are deeply unhappy, a higher percentage than in most other professions. One reason for this is that many of them hate the work they do. It doesn't necessarily have to be that way. There are lots of different types of legal careers out there, and it's likely that one of them will be a good fit for you. A person who would be miserable working for a large "Biglaw" firm might be happy as a public interest lawyer or a family law practitioner, and so on. But to take advantage of this diversity, you need to start considering what type of legal career best fits your needs and interests.
There are many ways to find out about potential options. But one place to start is to talk to the career services office at your school, which should have information about a range of possibilities. Many also often have databases of alumni working in various types of legal careers. Talking to these people can give you a sense of what life as a practitioner in Field X is really like.
Regardless, don't just "go with the flow" in terms of choosing what kind of legal career you want to try. The jobs that many of your classmates want may be terrible for you (and vice versa). Keep in mind, also, that you likely have a wider range of options now than you will in five or ten years, when it may be much harder to switch to a very different field from the one you have been working in since graduation.
2. Get to know as many of your classmates and professors as you reasonably can.
Law is a "people" business. Connections are extremely important. No matter how brilliant a legal thinker you may be, it's hard to get ahead as a lawyer purely by working alone at your desk. Many of your law school classmates could turn out to be useful connections down the road. This is obviously true at big-name national schools whose alumni routinely become judges, powerful government officials, and partners at major firms. But it's also true at schools whose reputation is more regional or local in nature. If you plan to make a career in that area yourself, many of your classmates could turn out to be useful contacts. The same holds true for professors, many of whom have extensive connections in their respective fields. They are sometimes harder to get to know than students. But the effort is often worth it, anyway. And many of them are actually more than eager to talk about their work.
This is one front on which I didn't do very well when I was in law school, myself. Nonetheless, I am still going to suggest you do as I say, not as I actually did. You will be better off if you learn from my mistake than if you repeat it.
3. Think about whether what you plan to do is right and just.
Law presents more serious moral dilemmas than many other professions. What lawyers do can often cost innocent people their liberty, their property, or even their lives. It can also save all three. Lawyers have played key roles in almost every major advance for liberty and justice in American history, including the establishment of the Constitution, the antislavery movement, the civil rights movement and many others. But they have also been among the major perpetrators of most of the great injustices in our history, as well.
Robert Cover's classic book Justice Accused - a work that made a big impression on me when I was a law student - describes how some of the greatest judges and legal minds of antebellum America became complicit in the perpetuation of slavery. While we have made great progress since that time, the legal system is not as far removed from the days of the Fugitive Slave Acts as we might like to think. There are still grave injustices in the system, and lawyers whose work has the effect of perpetuating and exacerbating them. We even still have lawyers who do such things as come up with dubious rationales for deporting literal escaped slaves back to places where they are likely to face further oppression.
Law school is the right time to start working to ensure that the career you pursue is at least morally defensible. You don't necessarily have a moral obligation to devote your career to doing good. But you should at least avoid exacerbating evil. And it's easier to do that if you think carefully about the issues involved now (when you still have a wide range of options), than if you wait until you are already enmeshed in a job that involves perpetrating injustice. At that point, it may be too late, both for you and (more importantly) for the people harmed.
The experience of the Covid-19 pandemic has, I think, highlighted the importance of Point 2. The loss of much in-person contact was a serious problem, and we should take advantage of the rise of vaccination and natural immunity to bring it back more fully than many educational institutions did in the last academic year.
I don't think I need to dwell on how the events of the last few years have reinforced the significance of Point 3. Suffice to say there are many recent examples of lawyers facilitating both good and evil. Even if you don't make a point of maximizing the former, you should try to avoid contributing to the latter.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Sound advice. I wonder about options to the student in #1. Law schools cost big money and students will find themselves on debt. Can they afford taking cases that are unlikely to bring in money to live and pay off the debt.
I would also say that in many cases lawyers are going to face moral dilemmas. The big firm may be defending a big time environmental polluter. But the public defender may need to accept that many of their client are in fact guilty of crimes. The goal of both lawyers is to see that their clients are treated well in the American judicial system and to accept that the fact that their personal beliefs will be challenged.
"The goal of both lawyers is to see that their clients are treated well in the American judicial system and to accept that the fact that their personal beliefs will be challenged."
Disagree.
Defense lawyers are there to ensure their clients' rights are protected - which should fit neatly with their personal beliefs.
"Advice to Entering Law Students - 2022"
Learn to code, or at least to run electric wire.
Imagine if Eugene had listened to this great advice. Imagine where he would be as a tech billionaire, and where we would be with benefits to society to society, many multiples the value of his wealth. Eugene's passing 1L and being lost to us is a tragedy.
you need to start considering what type of legal career best fits your needs and interests.
Hi, Students. Here are the subjects of the law. One thing is certain. You will graduate knowing shit. Nothing you have learned will you use. And nothing you will be doing will have been covered in school. I urge you to spend a half day in court during your Criminal Procedure Course. You will see what I mean.
Here, follow Ilya's advice. Choose. Each requires 10000 hours to learn after graduation.
Administrative law
Admiralty law or maritime law
Adoption law
Agency law
Alcohol law
Alternative dispute resolution
Animal law
Antitrust law (or competition law)
Art law (or art and culture law)
Aviation law
Banking law
Bankruptcy law (creditor debtor rights law or insolvency and reorganization law)
Bioethics
Business law (or commercial law); commercial litigation
Business organizations law (or companies law)
Canon law
Civil law or common law
Class action litigation/Mass tort litigation
Communications law
Computer law
Competition law
Conflict of law (or private international law)
Constitutional law
Construction law
Consumer law
Contract law
Copyright law
Corporate law (or company law), also corporate compliance law and corporate governance law
Criminal law
Cryptography law
Cultural property law
Custom (law)
Cyber law
Defamation
Drug control law
Education law
Elder law
Employment law
Energy law
Entertainment law
Environmental law
Family law
Financial services regulation law
Firearm law
Food law
Gaming law
Health and safety law
Health law
Housing law
Immigration law
Insurance law
Intellectual property law
International law
International human rights law
International humanitarian law
International trade and finance law
Internet law
Juvenile law
Labor law
Landlord–tenant law
Litigation
Martial law
Media law
Medical law
Military law
Mining law
Mortgage law
Music law
Nationality law
Obscenity law
Parliamentary law
Patent law
Poverty law
Privacy law
Procedural law
Property law
Public health law
Public International Law
Real estate law
Securities law / Capital markets law
Space law
Sports law
Statutory law
Tax law
Technology law
Tort law
Trademark law
Transport law / Transportation law
Trusts & estates law
Water law
Each of the above has subspecialties. You will need to spend another 10000 hours to learn that business. Sure Real Estate law is deals. But what if the client needs to change the Zoning of a property? That is almost a different business. Aggregate claims is almost a separate business from torts.
10,000 hours is just over one year (1.14 yr).
If a person was actually studying a fifth of the time, that means it would take about five years to be competent if a particular field.
Isn't that about what it is in the real world?
Sounds correct. That is why I want to get rid of high school and of college. Go to law school at 14. Get good at your job at getting zoning variances at 21, before being deteriorated.
At what age will you be better able to memorize 7000 rules, their execeptions and the exceptions to the exceptions? 16 or 24? Your memory has substantilly deteriorated 8 years after its peak.
Welcome students to the most toxic criminal enterprise in our nation. They use men with guns to take our $trillion and to return nothing of value. You are being indoctrinated, not educated. What you learned in high school must be eliminated from your mind. You must become a denier, or you will not be a lawyer.
You may have had a course in World History that covered Medieval Philosophy. You will meet it again, since the lawyer profession uses the 13th Century thinking and methods of inquiry of St. Thomas Aquinas and of Scholasticism. Cool in 1275 AD, not cool today. The court looks like a church. The judge is on an altar, even though he is the biggest thieving know nothing scumbag in the room. He will dress like a Catholic priest. You will stand and sit, sit and stand just as you do in church, for who? A vile, toxic scumbag.
In St. Thomas, you heard God would judge intent, that God could predict and prevent accidents. OK that is his faith. In law school, you will learn, man can do that. Then based on this delusion people go home or get the needle. The guy going home may be 10 times more dangerous than the guy getting the needle. Then you will learn that standards of conduct are to be set by a fictitious character. Why? So the standards can be objective and not those of your nice aunt or of the smartest person you know. However this fictitious dude is a thinly disguised Jesus. That is illegal in our secular nation. That illegality will be covered up.
You may have learned that argument by authority is a fallacy. Here that is all there is. Not a single policy or decision is validated by the methods established in social science 100 years ago. When a historical experiment does validate a policy but it interferes with the employment of lawyers it will be destroyed, and the expected consequences will result.
When you pick a law subject to learn, you will start with the self stated goals of the subject. From Admiralty to Water Rights, every one of those goals is in utter failure.
You will be crushed for any substantive dissent from this garbage profession. It is a cult, and brooks no dissent from its denial of reality.
I know you think you are intelligent and ethical. After passing 1L, you will be on your way to being 1000 times more toxic than a member of organized crime.
Ah, this is what I was waiting for.
many lawyers are deeply unhappy, a higher percentage than in most other professions. One reason for this is that many of them hate the work they do. It doesn't necessarily have to be that way.
Everyone hates being jacked by the Mafia, and everyone hates your profession. They want you dead, because you are vile, thievin' toxic criminals. You are scammers who pretend to serve civilization with the rule of law, an essential utility product, when all you do is plunder productive people and loose your vicious criminals to attack all of us.
Contracts are to enforce promises people no longer want to keep. They were an advance in 1275 AD replacing hostage taking. They only apply to $million transactions because it costs $50000 to hire a lawyer and years to resolve a dispute.
Compare that to ratings on eBay. If the highest bid on my CD is 1 Cent, I will still keep my promise to send it, to avoid expulsion from a $5 billion market after 3 negative ratings. That system enforces promises down to 1 cent. It does so immediately, and at no cost.
All jurisdictions with low crime have self help as the predominant feature.
Your profession is not about the goals of the subjects. It is about procedure and rent seeking. Rent seeking is just armed robbery.
They will lie to you. You defend a serial rapist and murderer of children, and he walks on a technicality. You will learn to say, I was defending the constitution. You will just be gaslighting, worst of all, yourself. You will come to believe this fake masking ideology.
If a professor is woke, please, do not report to administration. The administration is woke, and will crush you. You are at war, and stealth is necessary. Report the school to the Education Department for creating a hostile educational environment. Then request an investigation by the Non-Profit Office of the IRS for providing indoctrination, not education, and for engaging in tax fraud. They promised education in return for their exemption.
Education is not the practice of law. However, all licensed lawyers are officers of the court with duties to the constitution. There is a duty to avoid tax fraud by engaging in one sided indoctrination.
If you want good grades, study 7000 rules for 80 hours a week. These include the exceptions, and the exceptions to the exceptions. Do not get frustrated. These are for your welfare, to force people to hire a lawyer to manage their own chattel, the law.
If you are running out of time on an exam, do the analysis part of IRAC.
There will be 50 facts in a case. You will have to address 25 an hour. That is not the practice of law, but it is the practice of law school and of the bar exam.
"Law presents more serious moral dilemmas than many other professions."
Is that actually true? I mean, doctors and auto mechanics have plenty of opportunity to do evil, too.
Perhaps law provides more opportunities to do evil and get away with it?
I was going to make same point. As a safety engineer in the aerospace industry, I suspect a mistake on my part risks way more lives than a mistake on Eugene’s part. Every day engineers make moral decisions when balancing the pages of requirements that need to be satisfied for any given product, not the least of which is NOT killing the customers. But, I get it, he’s surrounded all day by elite, illiberal twats who think words are violence and “literally” put their lives at risk. And words are all attorneys’ have to work with.
Say, your bridge collapses, and you kill hundreds of motorists. That is terrible.
When the lawyer acts intentionally, he kills millions. He allows the lockdown, kills 10000 nursing home patients in a single city. Then the scumbag drops the economy $4 trillion around the world, and kills 100 million by starvation, more than all tyrants in the shortest time.
" I suspect a mistake on my part risks way more lives than a mistake on Eugene’s part. "
Maybe. Maybe not.
A lawyer's work could expose millions of people to a risk that might not become apparent before thousands of people are afflicted. How many people fit on an airplane?
Why has Eugene been dragged into this?
Most lawyers would have known not to place that apostrophe in your final sentence.
Using your airplane analogy if would depend on what stage we are talking about. A safety engineer who cuts a corner in the maintenance hangar places people on one plane at risk. If it is during the development and design stage, every person who flies that model is. I give you the 737 Max as an example.
No override by humans of intelligent machine. Big mistake.
It really was.
Remember the quote from The Right Stuff:
"- Pancho Barnes: See, some peckerwood's gotta get the thing up. And some peckerwood's gotta land the son of a bitch. And that "peckerwood" is called a "pilot"."
Rev. Great comment, bruh. What law school did you attend? I want to send all intelligent law students there to learn the legal analysis you provide daily. Great job, dude.
That’s not a moral dilemma, it’s just a moral impact. You know exactly what you need to do,
In the law, both sides oftentimes have a point regarding what is just.
Sarie Baby, and how do scumbag judges decide between the 2 sides?
I will give you a hint. They all need to be replaced by an app. All the scumbags need to go. They cannot even read the simple English of the constitution. For example, Article I Section 1 gives ALL legislative powers to the Congress. Not some. It gives none to the Supreme Court, nor to anonymous bureaucrats in the executive. Nor may Congress delegate that power without violating the separation of powers. That separation is the sole source of the little freedom we have.
Sometimes it's the case that both sides have a point in engineering, too; The product has to be safe, the product has to be affordable; If you make it unaffordably safe, it might as well not exist, and people being poor is, itself, a danger.
But the law provides lawyers a lot of opportunities to get away with being evil. Civil forfeiture, for instance. Or 'class action' lawsuits where all the gain goes to the lawyers, not the class. There are plenty of examples of things lawyers can get away with on account of their being legal, but which by any ordinary standard are evil.
Heck, just the billing practices alone; My divorce lawyer did more financial damage to me than my ex did, in a completely uncontested boilerplate divorce.
I don’t think Prof. Volokh was talking about a chance to be evil when he talked about moral dilemmas.
your engineering cost safety tradeoff is closer, but law isn’t one (or 3 if you add schedule) dimensional like that.
But the law provides lawyers a lot of opportunities to get away with being evil.
Or even rewards it.
If the object is to do the best possible job for your client then are there not tactics you might use that that non-lawyers would regard as unfair?
Does being unreasonably aggressive damage a prosecutor's career, or help it?
Maybe it's a reference to having to defend scumbags, people everyone knows are guilty, and even if they aren't guilty of the particular crime they are charged with, they sure are guilty of others.
Or having to enforce eviction orders, or prosecute under laws you don't agree with, or where the minimum sentence is more than you think the specific crime deserves.
Does any theoretical engineering risk match the legal arena? Medicine has problems of lousy diagnostics, inexact dosages and surgery, and even trying to save the life of a wounded criminal or corrupt cop. But those are more due to the general state of medicine, unlike law which deliberately harms undeserving people.
The law deliberately harms undeserving people? We got us a critical theorist here!
That is correct. Investigations are damaging. A trial is extremely harmful even if the verdict is correct. Why is such an obnoxious, toxic process allowed. So you vile toxic scumbags can take your $trillion from us and return nothing of value.
Medicine has problems of lousy diagnostics, inexact dosages and surgery, and even trying to save the life of a wounded criminal or corrupt cop.
Except for the life-saving business, which seems clearcut, these are technical, not moral, problems.
I suspect moral issues arise in engineering when, to follow Brett's example, the company's decision about safety issues seems too cavalier.
My first thought was the evil geniuses that create the censorship algorithms for "social" media apps.
I wish someone had given me advice like this 45 years ago.
(And to any students who might be tempted to find out what happened to David Behar to make him so bitter, don't waste your time. His anger and ignorance keep us amused during the boring times. He's worth a good laugh, but nothing more. We're still waiting for the first time he says something insightful.)
Morey, just a personal remark by a denier, cult shit. Fallacy of Irrelevance, bruh. See you next Tuesday.
Thank you for proving my point. So predictable, and so much fun to read your consistently illiterate drivel.
Great comment, bruh.
See now there's a perfect example of legal risk. You have identified the wrong party. There is no such commenter here.
I hvae to admit it took me quiet a long tmie to noitce taht myslef.
It's important to have a mentor. One reason I didn't do well afterward is that I didn't have one, not only to provide a connection but to give career advice. (I tried to cultivate several, by asking them questions after class, giving them little research papers, trying not to be too pushy about it, but none of them were interested.)
A mentor is very important. I know a law school that assigns each incoming student four mentors. One is a older student, the second is a faculty member, the third is an alum, and the fourth is a practicing attorney in a legal field in which the student expresses interest.
The law school makes sure the mentors maintain contact for the entirety of at least their first year, whether it be by email, coffee meetings, etc. The practicing attorneys sometime invites the student to come spend a day at their office (bring your student to work day). It is an amazing program that has served the students well.
Well, if you are to insist on going to law school, here is another piece of advice. Don't post every thought that comes into your head on social media because at some point in the future, it will come back to bite you in the ass. You will have time when you are 60+ years old to do that and you will not care what anyone thinks about it.
You always need to be more reserved than you think you'll need to be; 30 years ago who imagined that people would eventually be canceled decades later for perfectly ordinary comments and political positions? And people today don't imagine that 30 years from now having been silent today won't help due to the routine use of drug assisted interrogation...
Excuse me, Cindy. Bringing up social media posts in a tribunal violates the Rule of Evidence 403. It is irrelevant and inflammatory. The person doing it or using it, including any scumbag judge, should be sued for free speech retaliation ( https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5322176927652912012 ).
In addition, it violates a Rule of Conduct (3.4 (e)), Honey. Report it to the Disciplinary Counsel. If the lawyer protecting scumbag refuses to pull the license of the lawyer and the judge, sue him. Refuse all tax payer payment. Demand all damages from the personal assets of the vile scumbag.
That comment is about cases. If Cindy is referring to job interviews, just get the names of the interviewers. If any adverse post is brought up, just whip out a tablet. Scroll their crazy behaviors on the net.
I was referring to job interviews. I'm sure candidate's for final interviews have their social media postings reviewed intensely before they are even invited for that interview. One drunk post can cause you to move from #1 candidate to "no way in hell" can we hire this person.
Watch the “flair” scene from Office Space—law school is all about “flair”…and class rank.
Regarding Point 1, I think that it is unfortunately not possible to know whether you will like a particular field of law until you actually do work in that field. I also think in one's first year at law school, one hardly knows anything and so at that stage it's impossible to figure out what type of law you'll like.
If a subject is easy and enjoyable, and you score high grades without effort, that is your most likely subject. The reason it is easy is that you have spent a lot of time on it already. The reason you spent a lot of time on it is that you like it.
My advice is to try to identify a particular kind of law you want to practice before you commit to going to law school, including talking with a practitioner in that field, and learning what they actually do in a typical day (or week).
I encourage law students not to focus on a particular area of law early in a career (let alone in law school) but instead to focus on fundamentals (examples: persuasion, writing, sifting relevance, attention to detail, recognizing what is reasonable).
This. Of course, things can and often will change during (and after) law school about your interests and aptitudes; don't be single-mindedly focused on a particular area of law.
But if your only plan about going to law school is to Be A Lawyer (or even worse, because you don't know what you want to do, and law school delays that decision for three years), then you probably shouldn't be going until you know some more about the profession.
These days, I might even say locate an institution you want to work for if possible and talk to them about what they like to see in applicants. focus your summers on them.
It’s rough out there; focus can help.
Based on my 40+ years as a lawyer, I also think law students should be told that knowing the law is crucial, but nonetheless it is only half the battle. The other half, which often can be more important, is knowing how to deal with people. And they should be told that many people they will deal with, absolutely including judges, and other lawyers, will be dishonest, egotistical, not very bright, and unreliable.
I wish I could find the lecture of a lawyer on how to induce false memories in jurors.
That can apply to many jobs, not just the law. But I think it is still an excellent point.
I have made the same observation in the field of law enforcement. Dealing with people is at least as important as knowing the law and being able to apply it.
Why, thank you, Michael D.
Last, always talk to clients, witnesses, fellow lawyers, and judges as if everything you say is being recorded.
Or. Just don't go. Get an MBA instead. It is more useful and practical. You will be able to use those skills to have more of an impact in the business world then you will ever have in the legal profession. Remember that very few lawyers will ever argue a published appellate case, most trial work is mundane paperwork, and if you are lucky enough to get court time it is arguing some stupid motion because the partner is on vacation with the other female associate who probably would have taken that chair instead.
If you want to waste 10 years of your life sitting in an air conditioned box doing doc review, then so be it. Otherwise, if you are looking at going to law school this Fall you still have time to drop out and probably even get back your deposit. Do it and don't look back.
My experience has differed with respect to essentially every point you have advanced.
I could see why you'd be a bit of an outlier. Most lawyers don't still live in their mommy's basement and spend their days grinding out bravado-laced but ultimately bitter posts.
I left home at high school graduation -- didn't wait for college to start, just left -- and never spent another night in that town, let alone in my mother's house.
I have had a good legal career -- big firm partner, plenty of consequential political and pro bono work, plenty of money, foundation for several positions in business -- but I would not describe myself as an outlier. There are many successful lawyers, regardless of the manner in which success is to be judged.
Rev did you make $2 million ayear as a partner? What was your law subject?
And I'm the king of Bhutan, Artie. LOL
Not everyone has had a shambling, uneducated, disaffected, unproductive life, although your experience and surroundings may make that point difficult for you to apprehend.
Observing this blog’s downscale fans bluster about how bad it must be to be a lawyer is fascinating. Some of these hayseeds should check the billing rates of partners at strong law firms.
Rev. Stop gaslightin'. The cause of high lawyer income is the other lawyer, not the client buying a valuable service. You will never attack or deter the other lawyer, as I have. I destroyed the professional lives of several lawyers, so the defense lawyers did not get to go to work. They would never do that, go lawyer and judge hunting.
I rally want to take down a state. To deter.
Rev. How does it feel to make such a great living of $millions by stinking up the joint? It should be the policy of every defendant to not just prevail, and to thank the judge that put you through the ringer. It should be the policy to go after the other side, including the judge, with hammer and tong. Investigate them, report every ethical violation once a month, for years, sue them, have them arrested. Cancel them across the board in every aspect of their outside life.
If they persist in their attacks on our nation, self help has full justification in formal logic.
What do they teach in an MBA that is so practical? If you don’t want to run a business, seems kinda a waste.
The MBA's I knew never actually ran a business.
They were staff drones for some old codger who never even went to college, but runs a gazilllion dollar a year company.
Well that doesn’t sound very useful then…
If only there were a degree in inheriting riches.
My respectful take on your post is that it is unlikely that you are a lawyer. I say that because, IMHO, how you characterize the usual legal career is not accurate. It might apply to not-very-good lawyers who get stuck in low-level positions with big firms and never leave those firms, but I don't think it applies to anyone else.
And, by the way, there are a ton of lawyers who never go to court and have no interest in doing that sort of work and have fulfilling careers, even though that's usually the only sort of lawyer work one sees on TV or in the movies.
There are a small percentage of people who excel in any field. But, really tell me that if you are not in the top 2% of lawyers in the nation are you really going to be doing the kind of legal work that is featured in boutique legal publications, winning huge precedential appellate decisions, or even win big judgments? The answer is simply no. There is not that much room for this kind of work and it does not take too many people to fill it all up. Further, even if you do say some awesome legal work in recruiting a college, seeding a case, and winning, sooner or later a partner level is going to take over and with that goes the credit.
There is nothing wrong with representing someone who has a legit personal injury, the guy who is on his fifth DUI, or trying to keep someone from losing their shirt in a divorce. But don't act like this kind of legal work is engaging above the level of routine. I would give you that most of the business world falls into this category, but you don't need to donate $250,000 to left wing indoctrination gulags and give them 3 years of your life to be a successful paper shuffler.
I'm a government drone. And yes, I've gone to court many times, had precedential decisions, and won big verdicts. I became a prosecutor to get trial experience and tried more cases in my first year than most big firm lawyers do in a career. I do appeals now and have handled cases that changed major state law precedents. Yes, there's plenty of basic work, but a basic theft case might turn into the major case that changes how search and seizure is done in your state. Your mistake is at looking only at a narrow field of law. To borrow a phrase, there's no small law, only small lawyers.
It is a shame the profession exists out of necessity. But that necessity has been created by the legal field. By writing laws that require an “expert” to navigate, the profession is self-perpetuating.
DaivdBehar and Jimmy the Dane have at least one good point: do something enjoyable and productive that serves people instead of milking them to navigate laws that your own profession has written and expounded on. Get that MBA or welding certificate or whatever.
No, lawyers didn’t create the need for lawyers. Laws are not, as it turns out, simply rent seeking. They do stuff! Often important stuff!
But then you are that weird anarchism guy so I can see why you would have a different point of view.
Yeah, the “weird anarchism guy”. The person who rejects legislation as force. The person who rejects force and coercion as illegitimate.
Sarrir Baby. Japan 100 million. 20000 lawyers. No crime. Promises are kept. They are the Vulcans from Star Trek, very orderly. That is a lawyer free cointry.
Not all laws are simply rent seeking. A lot of them are, though.
No; don't be Behar. "The legal field" doesn't write laws; legislators do. (It's right there in their name.) Laws require an expert to navigate because the world is complicated. Even if anarcho-utopianism existed and individuals could voluntarily contract for the rule-based systems that they wanted their interactions to be governed by, you'd need lawyers to navigate those rules.
Davey Boy, every year you breathe, you destroy $10 million in GDP. Say you have 20 more years of practice left. Rid ourselves of you now, we are all $200,000,000 ahead.
Davey Boy is gaslightin' again. The elected officials are figureheads. 99% of policy is made by the lawyer profession, mostly to enrich itself. It is the Mafia. It has infiltrated and now fully controls our empire class government. It is squeezing it dry, as the Mafia always does. Davey Boy needs to STFU. Every utterance is a rent seeking crap utterance.
Students, I am your best friend. When the profession is crushed and redone, thete will half the lawyers. Their income will be quadruple because they will be productive, destructive. Their public esteem will be 20 times higher. That is because they will make civilization thrive not survive their onslaught. There will be zero social pathology. That includes zero war. How valuable is that? No rent, all profit, and a bargain. Everyone will kiss your hand and want to pay fot your drink when you say you are a lawyer.
Will this be hard? No. It will be easy. The central word of the law is reason. That is a mask for Jesus, and illegal in our secular nation. Replace reason with utility. Problem sloved, although math is invilved. Someone or an app can do it for you.
Also judges will not be lawyers but will go to judge school, and investigate themselves.
When I entered law school in 1965 it was because I wanted to have a career in politics, and I thought law was a good place to start. Fortunately, within a few weeks I realized that what I REALLY wanted to do was practice law. And that's what I did (and I now know that I would have been an AWFUL politician). Undoubtedly there are lawyers who are unhappy or who cause unhappiness among others, but I enjoyed 87.6% of my time as a practicing lawyer (yes, I made that number up). The firm in which I spent most of my career was then considered a BIG FIRM, but I was left to do my own thing. After I semi-retired, I affiliated with a small (10 lawyer) firm, which also allowed me to do my own thing. Technology allowed me to serve clients all over the country from my home office. My guess is that opportunities to do that are greater now than when I fully retired in 2016. Law practice was the right career for me. If it's the right career for other 21-year-olds, I wish them as good luck as I had in finding the way to do it.
>Law is a profession with relatively high income and social status.
Ascertainment bias. At best.
Point 3 is the most important. Life is short. You should either be proud of what you do and the impact you have on yourself and others or you should do something else.
I thought this thread was for giving advice, not complaining about the legal profession generally. Okay, here's some actual advice, given to me by someone with years of practice:
Law school is unlike every other educational experience you've had because it is not about how much you know; it's about how little you know. All your educational life, you've been rewarded for remembering and reciting as many details as possible. But in law school, you need to shed the unnecessary details and remember only the one rule you are to learn from the case. Once you know that rule, then forget as many as the trivial details as you can.
I found this to be absolutely true in law school. The better students would remember the basic holding of the case and that's about it. The students who struggled would have outlines crammed with meaningless details about the parties and facts (and they'd try to regurgitate as many of those details as they could when discussing the case), evidently trying to show just how much they learned. When grades came out after first semester, those kids showed up committed to learn even more details, often with a rainbow of highlighters and even denser outlines. Basically doubled down on the wrong strategy.
Learn only the very small point that matters. Forget the rest.
Now retired from an appellate practice, I taught part-time in several capacities in three different law schools over a 40-year period. Most students enter law school with the dopiest notions of what being a practicing lawyer actually consists of. Fictional representations on TV or film tend to show only the most heroic, dramatic and glorious moments.
The worst source for a student to consult is the full-time podium faculty. As super-bright as they are, few of them have ever actually practiced law (run a practice, planned a career, set professional goals, marketed themselves, billed clients, hired and trained associates, dealt with day-to-day ethical dilemmas). Their expertise is limited to (a) clerking and (b) their academic field.
Students must find a way expose themselves to the day-to-day life of what it means to be a career lawyer in the field. Curious about, say, being a patent lawyer? Don’t ask your IP professor. Find a way to meet with and, if possible, shadow an IP lawyer in his office and be unafraid to ask penetrating questions. What does a patent lawyer’s workweek consist of? Shadowing is the best way to find out. Otherwise You'll just be guessing largely in the blind.
Try to get as much exposure to real-world lawyering as you can. I entered law school with a definite idea of the type of law I wanted to practice. Exposure to it in the real world dimmed my view of it considerably! There are so many programs now that let you see how lawyers in different fields practice. Take advantage of this. I ended up in an area of law I never expected, and I love it.