Chances are, your mom wanted you to marry a lawyer

May 30, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Are you married to an attorney? If not, your mom may be a little disappointed.

A Lawyers.com survey interviewed nearly 1,000 people in April about whether they want their child to be a lawyer or marry one. Moms were more likely to want a lawyer as a son- or daughter-in-law, with 55 percent answering affirmatively. A potential lawyer in-law only appealed to 38 percent of dads.

Nearly two-thirds of parents polled would like their child to be an attorney when he or she grows up. It’s interesting to see how the family’s income plays a role in this desire. The survey revealed 80 percent of parents with household incomes less than $25,000 a year said they’d like their child to pursue a legal career; 54 percent of those with incomes over $75,000 want a lawyer in the family.

“Being a lawyer means being a respected professional, and that’s something that parents want for their children,” said Larry Bodine, editor-in-chief of Lawyers.com. These parents must not be aware of the negative attention law schools and the legal profession are receiving these days, thanks to high student debt rates and fewer employment possibilities.

Fess up: did your parents want you to become an attorney? Did any hope you’d marry a lawyer?

 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT