Sticking with it

August 24, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Back in July, I wrote a blog about what inspired you to enter the law. That post got an interesting comment from a reader who suggested I ask why people stick with the profession after finally understanding what it actually entails.

I don’t know if that reader has had a bad experience in law school or once he became an attorney, but he does bring up an interesting question: Why do you continue to be an attorney?

It seems nearly each profession is struggling right now; the legal community is no exception. While Indiana hasn’t been hit nearly as hard as some of the larger firms in bigger cities, we’ve seen our share of layoffs in recent months. Do you worry about your job? Hope to ride it out until prospects are better, or are you considering packing up and trying your hand at something new?

Even if you take the economy out of the equation, being an attorney isn’t easy. You put in countless hours, have tons of debt right out of law school, and maybe have to defend your choice of work to some. It’s a high-stress job that can demand more than you always want to give and can keep you from spending more time with family, friends, or pursuing hobbies. Ever think of throwing in the towel and trying to find another job outside the legal world?

Maybe the feelings of that reader are very rare and most are quite happy with how their career has turned out. Perhaps you’d care to share why you have continued to work as an attorney.
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