Best job: lawyer or paralegal?

January 9, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Paralegals have better jobs than attorneys, according to one job search Web site’s ranking of professions. Researchers at careercast.com analyzed numerous jobs and looked at five main criteria – physical demands, stress, work environment, income, and outlook (potential salary growth, unemployment rates) to rank 200 professions.

Based on the criteria, paralegals ranked No.17; attorneys made the list at No. 82. Here’s the entire list and more about the methodology.

Even though the physical demands on an attorney and paralegal scored very close in this ranking, paralegals had less stress and a better work environment, according to the researchers. Based on the methodology, it appears those careers with better work environments and less stress are “better” jobs than those that may pay higher salaries, but have a more demanding environment.

The rankings also say paralegals work on average 45 hours a week and attorneys work an average of 50 hours a week. Does that sound right?

Other careers in the legal profession making the list: court reporter/stenographer came in at No. 28 and federal judges at No. 69. For some reason, the list left off state or local judges.

I was surprised to see paralegals rank so highly on this list. I just assumed since they work in a law office, they often face similar stresses and demands that attorneys do. I expected them to be ranked closer to attorneys in that regard.

In case you’re curious, mathematician ranked No. 1 and lumberjack came in at No. 200. Reporters made No. 140 on the list.

What’s your reaction to the list? Does it seem accurate or did the list get it wrong?
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