How to become a lawyer

woodstock said:
I suppose it's possible that someone with a law degree would only be making 90K per year 16-20 years after law school, but not entirely likely.
Click to expand...

You might be surprised just how many aren't close to making that much.
 
woodstock said:
I'm guessing the cap is probably needs based, and, my example was almost hyperbole. I suppose it's possible that someone with a law degree would only be making 90K per year 16-20 years after law school, but not entirely likely.

In other words, 10% of your gross income on student loans sounds about right. For example, I thought the standard ratio for a mortgage, using debt from ALL sources, was in the range of 28%. Meaning car, student loans, and finally housing on top.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to imply anything other than "it's pretty low risk" to someone to take on student debt where the amount paid is capped as a percentage of income.

I wish children were taught more about money management before they have to choose college and careers - and not by Wall Street "financial engineers". It might promote better decisionmaking.

I know a number of folks that got law degrees and went into other jobs & professions, including a couple that did art instead (but not basketweaving, to bring up that old college joke). After all, 20 years IS a long time, and there are plenty of folks with law degrees that find out that it's not for them after being an associate at a big firm. I'm one who is not exactly working in the same field as my undergraduate degree.

"Standard" ratios really don't mean much any more - heck, in DC one can easily pay 25% of their income on rent. When I bought my first house, way back in *cough*, the ratios were 25% for housing, and 33% total debt. (Then again, back then, ALL interest was deductable from taxes.) The percentage ratios were originally developed for fixed mortgages that didn't increase over time. With variable rates, balloons, adjustables, etc, it's lost some of it's meaning.
 
wabower said:
The problem with a great line (one that cuts the lawyer off at the knees) during a deposition is that they can always "move to strike" anything they don't like. I don't particularly enjoy being deposed, but it seems to be part of the drill for executives in today's litigious environment. As a result, I take some perverse pleasure in cutting the pees-ants down to size.
Click to expand...

The thing that a lot of folks don't realize about depositions is that the good zinger lines rarely become evidence in the trial for that matter a majority of the deposition is not often used at trial. The deposition is used for several purposes, including gathering information, locking people in to a statement so that if they change it they can be impeached later. One of the big things about a deposition is that you get to evaluate the opponent's witnesses or parties and how they would do on the stand, If the witness is a total ass and is easily provoked it makes their position in terms of negotiation much weaker.

SCCutler said:
You might be surprised just how many aren't close to making that much.
Click to expand...

Amen Brother Spike Amen.

Rotor&Wing said:
Too many lawyers. Period.

It's supply and demand. And right now there is a glut of attorneys.
Click to expand...

Very true, Laws schools are profit centers for universities so they have every incentive to keep churning them out.
 
AdamZ said:
The deposition is used for several purposes, including gathering information, locking people in to a statement so that if they change it they can be impeached later.
Click to expand...
I have been deposed an awful lot of times in my career. 90% of the time I answer, 'yes', 'no' and 'I do not know/remember'. The rest of the time I consult with my attorney before answering out loud.
 
Last edited:
And the witnesses have an equal opportunity to evaluate the lawyers and determine if they're smart enough to come in out of the rain. My observation is that a fair amount can't meet that lofty standard, and I find myself wondering how they ever managed to graduate--from Jr. High.

When I encounter one of these mental midgets with a pre-rehearsed list of what they evidently think are great questions, I can't help but hit them with the zingers when they provide the openings. So far, I've found that they are the ones that are easily provoked.

AdamZ said:
The thing that a lot of folks don't realize about depositions is that the good zinger lines rarely become evidence in the trial for that matter a majority of the deposition is not often used at trial. The deposition is used for several purposes, including gathering information, locking people in to a statement so that if they change it they can be impeached later. One of the big things about a deposition is that you get to evaluate the opponent's witnesses or parties and how they would do on the stand, If the witness is a total ass and is easily provoked it makes their position in terms of negotiation much weaker.



Amen Brother Spike Amen.



Very true, Laws schools are profit centers for universities so they have every incentive to keep churning them out.
Click to expand...
 
ScottM said:
I have been deposed an awful lot of times in my career. 90% of the time I answer, 'yes', 'no' and 'I do not know/remember'. The rest of the time I consult with my attorney before answering out loud.
Click to expand...

Never been deposed, but went through enough audits, both internal and with company's external auditors to know that you answer the question asked, no more no less.

Only real difference is "I don't know" is not a good response with auditors!
 
I love this one!

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top