Dating site for lawyers

August 21, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Have you ever wanted an online dating forum where you can meet other attorneys from around the country? Tired of those generic dating sites that make you sift through boring teachers, accountants, and sales people when all you want is a creative, affluent, and attractive lawyer?

The Dolce Network has just the thing for you! It’s Lawdate.com, apparently the first site that is exclusively for attorneys (or those looking for one.) Wendy C. Freedman, a lawyer who launched the site, said this site allows like-minded eligible men and women connect (who all are apparently “creative, affluent, and attractive” professionals).

If you didn’t meet your potential attorney spouse in law school, through your firm, or any other legal contacts, here’s another way to make that legal union happen.

Last time I checked, there were more than 1,000 people who belonged to the site. Although the company is hyping the site’s launch as this week, I think it must have been localized to California for a while based on the location and number of people on it already.

And just as I suspected, there are more women than men on the site. That’s typically how it is in the real and online dating worlds.

In conversations with co-workers and friends, most agree that we don’t want to marry someone in the same profession as us. While it’d be nice to come home to someone who can relate to your work life, it’s also nice to leave that life at the office. Being married to another doctor, teacher, or attorney may lead to more conversations about work, and really, who wants to spend their off hours discussing legal briefs or blood pressure?

If you’d rather date some other kind of affluent professional, The Dolce Network plans on launching TheDr.Date.com, CapitolHillDate.com, and EntertainmentIndsturyDate.com.
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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT