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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT