would you trade getting mildly hit by a car (just a few bumps and bruises - nothing serious - but still traumatic) if, in turn, you got a paid week off of work?
This means you need to look for a new job, stat. I contemplated getting into a minor accident nearly every day of my post-college- career-type job.
Preach. This was not an unfamiliar fantasy while I was working in biglaw….
Source: umcanyounot
As I’ve tumbled about before, I am a lawyer who went to a private law school and isn’t part of the landed aristocracy. Therefore, I graduated school with a ton of debt: approximately $180,000.
I’ve been fortunate enough to have worked in biglaw (for the money, not the soul crushing) for a couple years and then transition to a great litigation boutique, so I have been able to make more than my minimum loan payments. And yet, after 3.5 years practicing, I still owe approximately $82,000.
However, I’ve paid far, far more than $100,000 to get to this point. For example, I did my taxes this weekend, and in 2011 I paid $47,000 of my income to student loans. Of that $47,000, $8,400 was interest, rather than principal. So, I really only paid down my loans $38,600. Play that out over the past 3.5 years, and I’ve paid more than $30,000 in interest alone. So the real price of my legal education is somewhere in the ballpark of $210,000, and it increases every day.
I mention this because when I took out my loans I understood, rationally, that loans accrue interest. However, I didn’t really internalize the fact that the interest would add years to the amount of time it will take me to pay them back. Knowing this, I would have still chosen law school because I like lawyering and have been fortunate enough to land great jobs. But anyone who doesn’t have the same job prospects and will owe what I did should get OK with the fact that the real price of their legal education is somewhere in the >$250,000 range—even with paying it off more quickly than you are required.
And this has been your daily depressing truth bomb….
Please see this post for my previous blathering on the subject of leveraging my exorbitantly expensive legal education into being a slightly less idiotic person when it comes to men/boys/gent interactions.
Based on my recent mediocre dating experience, I hereby propose implementing a screening process loosely based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) for all future menfolk. Thoughts under the jump.
“There are a whole bunch of rules, but no one really follows them until there have been 8 demands and a court order requiring you to comply.”
Add 3 threats to file for Rule 11 sanctions, and this is 100% correct.
(via fiduciarydoody)
Source: sc0rnflakess
It’s not that I’m not extremely fond of you. You’ve been a really important part of my life. I mean, I love you, Adderall. When you’re around, I feel like Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove, riding a bomb of electric energy, waving a ten-gallon hat in the air as we demolish every empty Google Document in sight. Together, we’ve obliterated entire societies of blank word processing documents, not to mention civilizations of emails, Tweets, IMs, and Tumblr posts. At the same time!
Source: observer.com
Law, humor and Christmas?? These are a few of my FAVORITE things!
Another dream job: In-house counsel for Little Timmy.
1. In the definition of “the Presents” at clause 1.1, please add the following items: one Lego Ninjago Fire Temple set; one Nerf Vortex Nitron Blaster; one Tech Lightsaber set; two ponies (any breed); one signed photograph of Karen Gillan. A schedule providing further details of these items, and outlets from where they might be purchased, is enclosed.
I’m a lawyer, so I basically spend all day thinking about law. That is a lie. I actually spend all day thinking about getting back into bed and inventing the perfect bed laptop stand so my computer doesn’t overheat but is at the perfect level and doesn’t press on my stomach.
Anyway, it occurred to me today that there are a bunch of lessons law teaches us with respect to dating. (SOMEONE get me a book deal, plz.) Without going too deep (There will still be stuff for a whole book, promise, future editor at Norton!), here are a few examples:
Finally, in any case like this that touches on the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives, there is an overriding public interest in knowing the truth. In much of the world, propaganda reigns, and truth is confined to secretive, fearful whispers. Even in our nation, apologists for suppressing or obscuring the truth may always be found. But the S.E.C., of all agencies, has a duty, inherent in its statutory mission, to see that the truth emerges; and if it fails to do so, this Court must not, in the name of deference or convenience, grant judicial enforcement to the agency’s contrivances.
-J. Rakoff (SDNY), rejecting Citi and the SEC’s proposed settlement of mortgage-backed investment fraud for less than Citi even made in fees on the deal and without admitting or denying any of the allegations
No one does elegant vitriol like Rakoff, and he really delivered today—both stylistically and substantively. (Decision and story here.) He’s been in the news before for rejecting too-soft SEC settlement agreements, but I cannot recall that he’s ever voiced such disgust with the SEC and righteous anger over the state of the economy. His message is basically that the SEC is failing to protect and vindicate the public’s interest, and they better step it the fuck up.
Could not agree more, Jed. And your beard is awesome.
Source: The New York Times
Robert Craig L’12, one of 17 Toll Public Interest Scholars currently at Penn Law. Robert’s interests focus on the intersection of technology and civil rights in this digital age. He plans to advocate for access to technology for all communities.
Penn Law has a Tumblr! I expect Columbia (my alma mater) will get one in about, oh, 2015.
While college students often enroll in professional programs to wait out economic soft patches, the U.S. has far more law schools than other professional schools, resulting in an excess supply of lawyers, argue investors and analysts.
In recessions, law school graduates have a harder time finding work than other graduates from professional programs and are more likely to default on their student loans.
Nevertheless, law students have been willing to take on even more debt for their degrees, borrowing a record $68,827 on average to attend public universities this year and $106,249 for private educations, according to the American Bar Association.
Interesting article. Based on my observations, the legal market in NYC is very, very difficult to get into right now for anyone—even traditionally safe ivy league grads. Once you have a job, it seems not impossible but still difficult to move to another one, but getting one seems to require equal parts luck, pedigree and connections. And even once you have one, it might suck. (And law sucks sometimes generally.)
So, I’d reiterate my advice to any Tumblrs out there thinking about law school—unless you get into a top 10 school and are committed to being in the top 30% of your class, know that you may end up with $180k worth of loans and no job. (I don’t know where the $106k figure comes from, but tuition alone is about $40k a year, so unless you get a scholarship or money from parents, it will be much more.) As someone who has been working to pay off that much, I assure you it is much harder than you think.
Source: The Wall Street Journal
Student loan reform is something of a pet interest of mine (read: completely self-serving interest), so I was excited to read about Obama’s new student loan executive order. I tried looking for details of the actual plan but couldn’t find anything more than some bullet points and a nice video. But the Atlantic has a nice piece on it, which I’ve excerpted below.
The initiative has three parts:
- He will clear the way for borrowers with direct government loans and government-backed private loans to consolidate their balances. The White House estimates that this will cut the effective interest rate on student loans by up to 0.5%.
- He will limit the amount of student loan payments to 10% of a graduate’s income. (Currently, the limit is 15%.)
- He will allow debt still outstanding after 20 years to be forgiven. (Currently, forgiveness occurs after 25 years.)
OK, so far so good. But let’s look at the numbers—the effect on real people.
Today, the NYTimes Opinion Page takes on the question of whether, and to what extent, there is value in the traditional system of qualifying attorneys to practice, namely ABA accredited law school + bar passage = attorney.
This is the author’s thesis:
Rather than improving quality, the barriers to entry exist simply to protect lawyers from competition with non-lawyers and firms that are not lawyer-owned — competition that could reduce legal costs and give the public greater access to legal assistance.
Interesting thought. Not sure I believe his Econ 101 analysis of the market, though:
Of course, lower legal prices would cause new law school graduates to be paid less, but more jobs would be available for such graduates because the demand for lawyers would increase. And new graduates would begin their careers with less law-school debt, because alternative providers of legal education would force law schools to reduce tuition.
Law schools “forced” to reduce tuiton? Hahahaha. Good luck with that one. HA
As to the substance, perhaps I am biased because I am part of the establishment, but I think there is some value in requiring attorneys to demonstrate some base level of competency. I’m not the first one to suggest it, but I would reinstate the option for students to choose apprenticeship + bar passage instead of the 3 year law school model. This was the traditional method of learning (which Abe Lincoln used to great fanfare) until relatively recently. Several states still allow it (Virginia, and there might be others?), but most have done away with it in favor of the 3 year attendance requirement.
Having paid upwards of $200k for the privilege of attending an ivy league law school, I can tell you that most of the classes I took have no applicability to or value in my legal practice—everything I learned about litigation happened once I started practicing. If I could have skipped law school and just worked for attorneys for a couple years and then taken the bar exam, I would not only be a better lawyer now (because I would have learned how to practice) but I would also not have been hobbled by an enormous amount of debt.
Down with the ABA! What do other Tumblr-ing lawyers think? Was your legal education as useless as mine?
Edit: Apparently David Lat agrees with me. I hate his website, Above the Law, with a fiery burning passion normally reserved for racists, homophobes and people who eat more than their share of food when we’re out at a restaurant together, but I guess I can live with us having the same thought once.
Sometimes, I hear fellow associates complain about how they don’t get enough work, how they’re not billing enough, etc. Yet, it’s these same people that never volunteer to do anything.
Wait, there are still law firms in NYC where people don’t have enough work?? Sign me up! I’m kidding! (mostly??)
Totally second this post. Quality pro bono was difficult to get at my old firm, and I got on a great habeas case by volunteering to cite check a brief over a weekend. Shortly thereafter someone was forced to leave the team, and they asked me on. This was the case where I eventually got to do my first direct examination. Dynamite experience, and it never would have happened if I didn’t put myself out there and sacrifice a little personal time.
OK, back to billing!
GPOYW, Color My Underpants Important Edition.
This whole coloring book is classic comic gold.
A collection of posts about gardens, cats, law and Brooklyn.
Top
