Would you still become a lawyer?

April 13, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Reporter Michael W. Hoskins wrote this post.

Some within the Indiana legal community say they wouldn’t become an attorney if they could go back in time to change that decision.

An Indiana Lawyer survey shows that more people offered a NO than a YES when responding to the question of: “If you could go back in time, would you still go to law school and become a lawyer?”

Fifty-five out of 91 responses. That’s a little more than 60 percent. Meaning that only 36 people said they’d still go to law school and become an attorney. The survey has been available online for nearly two weeks.

Wow. What does this say about the profession if so many of those who’ve taken the bar exam and the attorney oath feel they wouldn’t do the same thing again? I wonder if that sentiment is tied to the economy, as so many lawyers and law firms are seeing tough times because of their clients’ struggles? Or is it more specific, tied to something like the billable hours game, where young attorneys must constantly sprint to garner more client time and manage their schedules? Does the rising cost of law school factor into this?

Those answering with a YES might offer reasons such as they enjoy making a difference, helping individual clients – whether that’s a person or business – being able to work out resolutions to disputes. Maybe it depends on experience or type of attorney, or even whether someone practices at a big firm or by himself or herself as a solo practitioner.

Maybe it comes down to a difference in perspectives: Either you’re always battling issues out in courts and conference rooms and it always seems like a fight from opposing sides, or you are working to get people to agree and resolve their differences, based on what the law of the land says.

Sometimes, people find themselves looking back and wondering if they’d do things differently if given the chance. If you had that chance to fire up a flux capacitor and time machine, would this be where you wanted to end up? Why or why not?

We want to hear from you on this, possibly for a larger story in the print edition of Indiana Lawyer. Let us know what you think. Put “lawyer survey” in the subject line and e-mail us at indlaw@ibj.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • As a follow-up question ask: if given the opportunity, would you skip law school but become a lawyer if you pass the bar exam?

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT