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.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • 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

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT