Generation Y and job loss

March 11, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Is the Generation Y/ “highly praised” generation taking job loss worse than other attorneys or even others their same age in different professions?

You definitely have to have a certain type of personality and work ethic to become an attorney: hard working, type-A, detail oriented, go-getter kind of person. Combine your personality with the fact you grew up constantly hearing how great you were at everything you did (and probably got a trophy for something even if you didn’t actually win the competition), and attorneys from this generation who can’t find a job may be taking it harder than others.

The fresh out of law school students and young associates under the age of 30 could answer this question better than I can since I am not an associate looking for a job. But being around that age, I can understand the theory that people our age may be more affected mentally by the rejection. You’ve worked hard to become an attorney and expect to get a job out of school or hold on to the one you’ve got, so not having a job is a major blow to the ego and self-esteem. Suddenly, no matter how hard you work, you can’t get the results you want. Plus, if you’ve been in school since the age of 6, you haven’t really had to deal with rejection and struggles like finding a job.

Does this theory have any weight to it? As someone who grew up on the cusp of the “highly praised” generation, I can see how handling rejection can be more difficult for us than someone 10 or 15 years older, especially if we were told we could do anything we wanted and we did everything great.
  • Oh please. I\'m a young associate and have never experienced the high praise to which you refer.
    I also doubt that many young associates or law students have made it out of law school without taking at least one serious knock to the ego. The reality for young lawyers is the same as lawyers (and people) of any generation. It is scary and unnerving to be without employment. Plain and simple.

Post a comment to this story

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
  1. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?